Rajasthan Court July 1950 Judgments
Magraj and ors. Vs. HarnaraIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj47
ORDERBapna, J.1. This is a revision by the plaintiffs in a suit for redemption. The plaintiffs, Vyas Magraj and others, sued Harnarayan and Jainarayan for redemption of certain house property situated at Jodhpur alleged to have been mortgaged in St. 1923 for Rs. 200/- (Bijaishahi). The defendants denied the right of redemption claimed by the plaintiffs, pleaded lack of jurisdiction in the Court and claimed Rs. 1225/- as cost of improvements. The trial Court, after inquiry, passed a preliminary decree for redemption on payment of the mortgage amount plus Rs. 1225/- spent on improvements. The plaintiffs filed an appeal urging that they were not liable for the cost of improvements. The defendants also filed an appeal urging that the lower Court had no jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief. The appellate Court accepted the appeal of the defendants and directed return of plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction. The appeal by the plaintiffs automa...
Tag this Judgment!Laxminarayan and ors. Vs. Ashkar Khan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj50
Nawalkishore, C.J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff and the only question calling for determination is one of limitation. On pos Sud 14, St. 1983, Nathukhan, father of respondents Ashkar Khan and Zumardi Khan executed a bond in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs. 136 4-0, being the balance of previous account and agreed to pay interest on this amount at 15% per annum. On Migsar Sud 5 St. 1989, Nathukhan gave Karbi worth Rs. 2 towards this debt and thumb-marked the endorsement relating to it at the back of, the bond. Nathu Khan died in St. 1989. On Migsar sud l, St. 1995, Ashkar Khan Re. 1 and the endorsement relating to it was thumb-marked by him. After giving credit for the sum of Rs. 3 thus paid, the plaintiffs, Sukhdeo Shivbux instituted the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 300 consisting of us. 136. 14 0 on account of principal and Rs. 166 20 its interest against Ashkar Khan and Zumardi Khan, sons of the deceased Nathu Khan. Zumrdi Khan did not appear in the suit and, th...
Tag this Judgment!Shree NaraIn Vs. Kishanlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Raj15
Sharma, J. 1. This is a plff's. application to revise the order of the learned Judicial Officer, Shamlat Area, Sambhar, refusing to amend the plaint. The plff. brought a suit with the allegation that the plots Nos. 1607, 1608, 1609, & 1610, along with a few other plots, in the town of Sambhar belonged to him & had been in his possession as owner for a very long time. In August 1943, the defts. encroached upon a piece of land, 185 ft. x 24 ft. which formed part of Khasra No. 1607. The land in dispute was shown in the sketch attached to the plaint. The plff. prayed that the possession be delivered to him of the said land which was denoted by letters A, B, C, D on the sketch.2. The defts. denied the plff's. title to the land in suit, and pleaded that they had been in possession thereof for about 17 years. The learned Judicial Officer framed issues, the material being issue No. 1 which runs as follows:'Whether the land in dispute, A, B, C, D. is owned & possessed by the plff?'The plff. pro...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Nazar Mohamed
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj122
ORDERGupta, J.1. This is a reference by the Ses. J. recommending that the order of commitment of the accused Nazar Mohamed by the 1st Class. Mag. of Mandalgarh, be quashed. The accused was committed to the Sessions for taking his trial for an offence under Section 466 for having added some language to the entries in the Polices Roznamaha-am of the 10th & the 12th May 1947.2. I have heard the learned Asst. Govt. Advocate at length & perused the records of the case including the entries in question in the polices diary in respect of which the offence under Section 466, Penal Code, is said to have been committed by the accused who was a S. I. Police in charge of the Police Station, of Parsoli & had investigated into the report of an offence in which one Khutaj was alleged to have severely beaten his brother Raghunath. The alleged forgery which consists of subsequent additions of certain language in the said entries in the said diary does not appeal to have been committed dishonestly &, as...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Lal Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj107
ORDERGupta, J.1. This is an appln for transfer in a criminal case pending against the petnr in the Ct of the First Class Mag, Jaisalmer, for an offence under Section 406 of the Penal Code.2. It appears that the petnr had collected a sum of Rs. 101/- as subscription to the Congress funds from one Prem Raj Jetha of Bhadli, Jaisalmer but did not deposit it in the local Congress office. Somehow the matter reached the police who investigated into the matter & put up a challan under Section 406, Penal Code, before the First Class Mag, Jaisalmer. During the pendency of the case before the Mag, one Satya Deo, said to be the Secretary of the Jaisalmer Congress, was examined on behalf of the prosecution on 10-2-1950. During his examination he produced a receipt bearing the No. 204 & showing that the sum of Rs. 101/- had been deposited. After his statement was over & the witness had been discharged, has was asked to produce the receipt-book containing the receipt No. 204 but no date was fixed for...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj119
ORDERGupta, J.1. This is a reference by the Dist Mag, Jodhpur, recommending that the judgment of the City Mag, Jodhpur, dated 22-8-1949, convicting one Vazira under the Influx from Pakistan Control Ordinance, 1948, & sentencing him to two months' R. I., be set aside.2. The learned Asst Govt Advocate, be it said to his credit, frankly admitted that there is no evidence on the record to show that Vazira came to India from Pakistan. He further admitted that the only witness who could depose to Vazira coming from Pakistan was Budhsingh & he has not been produced on behalf of the prosecution. Under the circumstances, he conceded, Vazira's conviction could not be supported. He thus, supported the reference.3. It may be observed that the offences under the Influx from Pakistan Ordinance were triable as warrant cases. Inspite of the fact that there was no evidence whatsoever on the record to show that Vazira had entered into India from Pakistan, the learned City Mag questioned Vazira, recorded...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Samad and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj121
ORDERBapna, J.1. This is an appln for transfer of a criminal case. The six petnrs were charged with certain offences under Section 6, Essential Supplies Act & Section 420, Penal Code. The incident relates to certain occurrence which took place at Kuchaman City. The chalan was put up before the Ct of the Sub-Divisional Mag, Parbatsar on 23-4-1950. This Ct had jurisdiction both as regards the nature of the offence & the place of occurrence. The Dist Mag Nagaur passed an order on 13-5-1950 for the Transfer of the case from the Ct of the Sub-Divisional Mag, Parbatsar to the Ct of the Extra Mag Nagaur which has given rise to this petn. The order of the learned Dist Mag is a short one & is in the following words:'The above noted case is hereby transferred to the Extra Mag Nagaur from the Ct of the Sub-Divisional Mag, Parbatsar with immediate effect.'2. The Dist Mag purports to have passed this order under Section 528 (2), Cr. P. C. He had no doubt power to transfer this case but the exercise...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›