Rajasthan Court September 1950 Judgments
Nand Kishore and ors. Vs. Gauri Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj48
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is an application by the defendants to revise the order of the learned Munsif Alwar rejecting the defendants' request to direct the commissioner at Dehradun to record the statement of one Ramkishan Das of the firm Mitrasen Jagannath at Deharadun and arises under the following circumstances. The defendants got a commission issued for the production of certain account books of the firm Mitrasen Jagannath at Dehradun. In the first instance they named Jagannath, proprietor of the firm, as witness who was to be examined and produce the account books of the firm. Subsequently, however, they omitted the name of any person and wanted a commission to be issued only for the firm Mitrasen Jagannath. When, however, the Com- missioner proceeded to examine the witness, it was found that Jagannath had long since been dead. The defendants wanted to examine Bam Kishan in place of Jagannath, but the commissioner did not comply until he had received a direction from the Court issui...
Tag this Judgment!Devilal and ors. Vs. Ram Sahai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj86
Sharma, J.1. This is the pltfs'. appeal & arises under the following circumstances:- The pltfs. sued the defts. Earn Sahai, Chiranjilal, Damodar & Gopal on the ground that the parties had descended from a common ancestor Chaturbhuj Das who left certain property at Dausa. Out of this property a certain portion was demolished under the Town Improvement Scheme of Dausa town, for which the State of Jaipur settled Rs. 196 as compensation. Out of this sum of Rs. 196 one-fourth i.e. 49 was realized by the defts. 1 & 3, i.e. Ram Sahai & Damodar, who are brothers of the defts. 2 & 4 respectively, on 22-2-1916 from Nizamat Dausa. The pltfs. claimed that they were entitled to half share out of this sum, for which they made a demand on the defts. 1 & 3, but they did not comply.2. The defts. pleaded, inter alia, that the property acquired for the town Improvement Scheme was their sole property & the pltfs. had nothing to do with it. They also pleaded that the pltfs. had no right to file the suit in...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Vs. Jagdish and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj36
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is an application by one Manohar complainant in a case under Sections 302, 148, 149, 325, Penal Code pending in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dig in Bharatpur District, to revise the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, admitting the opposite party (hereinafter to be referred to as accused) to bail under Section 498, Criminal P. C.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also the counsel for the accused. The Government Advocate did not take any part in the proceedings in spite of notice.3. The man contention on behalf of the complainant is that one of the offences, i.e. one under Section 302, Penal Code was non-bailable and punishable with death or transportation for life. The learned Sessions Judge was therefore, not justified in admitting the accused to bail.4. On behalf of the accused it was argued that although one of the offences was under Section 302, Penal Code which was non-bailable, yet the evidence and the cir...
Tag this Judgment!Bhonra Vs. Shivram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj22
Dave, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the order of the District Judge, Alwar, dated 5-4-1949 getting aside the decree of the Munsif, Alwar, dated 18 9-1948 and remanding the case for trial of other issues.2. On 11-1-1947 the plaintiff-respondent 1 Shivram brought a suit for pre-emption in respect of the property sold by respondents 2 and 3, Lalluram and Balabux to the appellant by a sale-deed dated 12-2-1946. The suit was thus well within one year of the date of sale acoording to Article 10, Alwar State Limitation Act, which was the same as Article 10, Indian Limitation Act. The respondent, however, pleaded that the suit was barred on account of the provisions of Section 31(2), Alwar State Pre-emption Act, [VII] 7 of 1946. The trial Court allowed this objection and dismissed the suit. The District Judge has set aside that order and remanded the case for the trial of the remaining issues. The only point for our determination, therefore, at present is that of limitation.3...
Tag this Judgment!Ghulam Mohammad and anr. Vs. Lakshmibux
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj88
Dave, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defts. against the judgment & decree of the Disk Judge of Jaipur, dated 22-10-1948, upholding the decree of the Munsif West, Jaipur city, dated 19-7-48, for their ejectment from the pltfs. shop & for payment of Rs. 144 as rent to the reap.2. On 27-7-1950 the applts. advocate had raised two grounds in appeal. His first contention was that there was a subsequent agreement for enhanced rent between the parties & therefore, the previous agreement on which the pltf had based his suit was not enforcible. This objection is untenable, because both the Cts. have recorded a concurrent finding that the subsequent agreement alleged by the applts. was not proved. This is a finding of fact & a second appeal thereon does not lie.3. The next argument pressed by the applt's. counsel was that the notice given by the resp. was invalid since it did not comply with the requirements of Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, It was argued that the notice was not for ...
Tag this Judgment!Abas and ors. Vs. Sheolal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj26
Nawal Kishore, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs' first appeal from the judgment of the learned District Judge dismissing the suit as premature and, therefore, not maintainable. The point involved in this appeal lies within a narrow compass but before Betting it out and dealing with it, a few facts may be stated in order to show how it emerges.2. There is a firm of Motilal Nemichand consisting of Motilal, Nemichand and Ramanlal partners which was carrying on business of commission agents at Ahmedabad. Barkat, Abas, Wali and Jan Mohammad, sons of Akbar, carried on business of cloth and colours and used to purchase their goods through the firm Motilal Nemichand. During the course of their dealings, it appears from the allegations made by the plaintiffs, Barkat and his brothers incurred certain liabilities and not having discharged them, the plaintiffs instituted two suits against them for the recovery of RS. 7,870-7-9 and RS. 24,433.0-9 respectively on 20-7-1948, in the Court of Distriot Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Dasu Ram Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Raj20
Sharma, J. 1. This is an appeal by Dasu accused against his conviction and sentence by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar. He has been convicted under Section 411, I.P.C., and sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case is that one Azmat, a Meo boy about 11 years old, had gone on the 17th November 1949 for grazing his buffaloes in the jungle of village Chaprara in Alwar District. He was wearing a gold ear-top in each of the ears and a pair of silver bangles on the wrists. In the evening the buffaloes came back alone for Azmat did not return. A search was made for Azmat, as a result of which his dead body was found inside a well, called Alamwala well. On the dead body, however, the ornaments, which Azmat was wearing when he started for grazing the buffaloes, were not found, A written report. Ex. P A under the signatures of Ummed and thumb impressions of a Lambardar and Chhotalli Hissedar, was lodged at the Police Station, Sadar, Alwar, the same day. On the 21st N...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›