Rajasthan Court March 1950 Judgments
Balchandra Vs. Banshi Dhar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Raj56
Bapna, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent.2. The appellant, Bal Chandra was tenant of a shop at Sujangarh under one Jagannath at a rent of Rs. 181 per annum. The said Jagannath gold the shop to the respondents Bansidhar and Mal Chandra, on 5th July 1948. On 8th July 1948, the appellant executed a document, Ex. P.-1 agreeing to hold the shop from 6th July 1948, as a tenant of the respondents at Rs. 23 a month, and fixed the period of tenancy at two months. It was stipulated that Bal Chandra would vacate the shop after the expiry of two months without any hesitation, failing which the landlords were authorised to sue for ejectment. On 26th August 1948, the respondents sent a notice to the appellant to vacate the shop on or before the due date according to the agreement.3. The respondents brought this suit on 8th November 1948, for ejectment of the defendant appellant for having failed to vacate the shop, as agreed upon, and also sued for recover...
Tag this Judgment!Sarkar Vs. Madho Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Raj34
Bapna, J. 1. This is a reference by learned Sessions Judge, Nagaur. The accused Madho Ram, was challaned by Police, Khaki, to the Court of Lala Jaswant Narain, First Class Magistrates, Nagaur, on a charge under Section 302/109, M. P. C. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses. The accused stated that he had been falsely impleaded, pleaded alibi, and examined three witnesses in support of his version. The learned Magistrate was of opinion that no case had been made out and submitted the record to the learned Sessions Judge with a recommendation for discharge of the accused as required under the then Marwar Oriminal Procedure Code. The learned Sessions Judge, however, came to the conclusion that the evidence was sufficient for the framing of a, charge under Section 302/109, M. P. C. and on 10th February 49 directed the learned Magistrate to commit the accused to the Court of Session for trial. By the time the case was received by the lower Court, there was a change in the personnel, and th...
Tag this Judgment!Shivdan Chand Vs. Kalyan Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Raj37
Bapna, J.1. This is a petition for certificate that the case is fit one for appeal to Ijlas-i-Khas against the decision of the former High Court of Jodhpur dated 9th February 1949. The relevant Rule is contained in the notification issued by His Highness the Maharaja Sahib of Jodhpur on 12th December 1946 and its relevant provisions are as under :'18. Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained an appeal shall tie to Ijlas i-Khas: -- (a) From any decree passed on appeal by the High Court, (b) From any decree passed by the High Court in a case relating to land, whether either party had pleaded that he holds the land in dispute otherwise than as a cultivating tenant of the opposite party, and an issue had been framed regarding the tenure in which the land was held, and where the decree appealed from does not affirm, the decision of the Court immediately below. (c) From any decree passed by the High Court, when the case as hereinafter provided is certified to be fit one for appeal. 19...
Tag this Judgment!Hukum Singh and ors. Vs. Bhawar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Raj39
Bapna, J.1. This is an application for certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal to Ijlas-i-khas against the decree of the former High Court of Jodbpur, dated 4th February 1949. The petition is opposed by the respondent, and therefore it is necessary to go into this question at s(sic) length.2. The petitioners were plaintiffs in a suit for declaration that they were entitled to a half share in the Jagir held by one Swaroop Singh, the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants, and they prayed for injunction that the defendants, who were the owners of the remaining half, should not interfere with the realisation of the Jagir income according to the share to which they were entitled as aforesaid. The defendants admitted the plaintiff's share to be only one-third in the Jagir left by their common ancestor, Swaroop Singb and claimed the remaining two-third share for themselves. The plea was that Swaroop Singh had three sons, Anar Singh by the first wife, and Bag Singh and...
Tag this Judgment!Nenu Ram Vs. Shivkishen
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Raj55
Bapna, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of Rs. 225 which was decreed by the trial Court but dismissed on appeal. The allegations in the plaint were that the defendant executed two 'Hundis', one dated Sawan Sad 11th, Sumwat 1995 for Rs. 125 and the other dated Asoj Sud 9th Samwat 1997 for Rs. 25 in favour of the plaintiff on one Premsukh Bach Raj of Bombay payable at Bight but the same were dishonoured and hence the suit for recovery of Rs. 175, (150?) as principal plus Rs. 75 as interest. The defendant alleged material alteration in the date of the 'Hundis', denied consideration and further pleaded that no presentation was made to the drawee and no notice of dishonour was given to him. It was held by both the Courts that there was no alteration in the dates. The trial Court held that the 'Hundis' were presented but dishonoured and notice of dishonour was also given to the defendant. The learned civil Judge, however came to the conclusion that the 'Hu...
Tag this Judgment!Birma Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj127
Ranawat, J.1. This appln. has been filed under Section 491, Criminal P. C., on behalf of Birma Nai who was arrested on 7-1-1950, under orders of the Dist. Mag. Dholpur.2. It is alleged on behalf of the petnr. that at the request of. the U. P. Govt. forwarding prima facie evidence against him the Legal Remembrance of the Govt. of the United States of Matsya. ordered the Dist. Mag., Dholpur to surrender him; to the Dist. Mag. Agra to stand his trial in a, case under Section 395, Penal Code pending in his Court. The Dist. Mag. at first after having scrutinised the prima fact evidence had declined to surrender Birma to the U. P. Govt., but when he received an order from the Legal Remembrancer to the United States of Matsya be caused Birma to be arrested on 9-1-1950, for being surrendered to the U. P. Govt.3. It has been argued by the advocate of the petnr. that there is no law in force in the area of the Dholpur State relating to the extradition of fugitive criminals. The Dist. Mag , Dholp...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1950
Reported in: 1950CriLJ1206
ORDEROak, J.C.1. This is an application Under Section 491, Criminal P, 0,, for a direction in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus in respect to a per-son Raj Kumar, who has been detained in the Central Jail at Ajmer. An affidavit has been filed in support of this application. According to this affidavit, Raj Kumar was arrested at Ajmer on 9tb September 1949 for an alleged offence Under Section 430, Penal Code, at the request of the police of Rajasthan State. Although several months have passed since the arrest, no prima facie case or warrant of arrest has been received from Rajasthan authorities. Notice of the application was issued to the learned District Magistrate, I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the learned District Magistrate, the history of the case is as follows: On 9th September 1949 Raj Kumar was arrested by the polios in the State of Ajmer Under Section 54, Criminal P.C. upon suspicion with respect to an off...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›