Rajasthan Court December 1951 Judgments
Kaboolchand Vs. Deputy Custodian, Alwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj146
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Shri Kabool Chand under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ, direction or order to the Deputy Custodian, Alwar District, and the Superintendent of Police, Alwar, directing them not to evict the applicant from a certain house in the city of Alwar. The case put forward by the applicant in his petition was briefly this. The petitioner had been occupying house No. 10 in Ward No. 2, Mohalla Shikari Para Alwar. This was evacuee property and the applicant was the lessee of the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The applicant had been paying the rent of the house re-gularly and had paid up to January 1951 and had also deposited one month's rent in advance when the house was first given to him. The lease in question had not been determined by the Deputy Custodian and the petitioner had not received any notice to that effect. The Deputy Custodian, however, passed a warrant of ejectment and sent it to the Superintendent of Police for complianc...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pratap Vs. Revenue Minister to the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Raj111
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Ram Pratap under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the order of the Revenue Minister of the State of Rajasthan dated 30-8-1951.2. The circumstances in which that order came to be passed are these. A piece of land belonging to the applicant was acquired by former Jaipur State sometime before 1949, and a sum of Rs. 4,123/- as compensation for the construction standing on it and an equal piece of land as exchange were ordered to be given to the applicant. Thereupon, certain persons, who claimed to have an interest in the land acquired, made an application to the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the dispute as to the distribution of the compensation to the Civil Court under Section 18, Jaipur Land Acquisition Act (28 of 1943). The Land Acquisition Officer refused to make the reference by his order dated 1-7-1949. Thereafter, it seems that further attempts were made to get the Land Acquis...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Balabh Vs. Gopi Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj157
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is an application by the defendant to revise the order of the Munsif at Jhunjhun for striking out their defence. The facts are that sometime before the 1st May, 1951 the defendant Shubh Karan, was askad to copy out the Hundi which is the basis of the suit. The defendant Subh Karan was summoned on the 1st May, 1951 for making out another copy of the document as there was some difference about the manner in which the copy was made. On the 1st May, 1951 Subh Karan was present with his counsel but there was some difference between the parties as to the manner in which the copy was to be made. The Court decided the case on the 3rd May, 1951 without making any order that the defendant Subhakaran should be present on the 3rd May, 1951. On the 3rd May, 1951 Subh Karan was not present and his counsel was not prepared to take the responsibility of producing him on the next date. The Court therefore, made an order to the plaintiff to file process fee within three days to su...
Tag this Judgment!Ratanlal Vs. Kishanlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj141
Bapna, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for redemption. The appellant sued the respondents On 11th March, 1947, lor redemption of certain property situat-ed in the town of Partapgarh, and described in the plaint, on the allegations that their father Pannalal mortgaged the property with the respondents on llth June 1920 for securing a loan of Rs. 151/- but that the defendants had declined to redeem the mortgage. The respondents pleaded that a further charge was created by Pannalal on 14th- December 1922 for a sum of Rs. 95/- and thereafter on 26th December1923, Pannalal agreed to sell the house to the mortgagees for a sum of Rs. 455/-, & that after adjusting the loan and the interest thereon he took some cash and agreed to take the balance on executing a registered deed of sale four days later. It was further pleaded that after the death of Pannalal, a deed was executed by one Punamchand as guardian of the plaintiffs, who were then minors, on 11th January1924. T...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Singh Ji Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Raj22
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Rao Sahib Manohar Singhji, Jagirdar of Bedla under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the State of Rajasthan for the issue of writ of mandamus or such further and other writ direction or order as may seem fit and proper.2. The case of the applicant is that he is the owner of the Jagir of Bedla which is situate in the former State of Mewar, now included in the State of Rajasthan. The former State of Mewar was integrated in 1948 to form what was known as the former United State of Rajasthan. There was a further integration in April and May 1949 by which the former United State of Rajasthan was amalgamated with the former State of Bikaner, Jaipur, Jaisalmer, and Jodhpur and the former Union of Matsya to form the present United State of Rajasthan. The former State of Rajasthan passed three Ordinances; No. XXVII of 1948, No. X and No. XV of 1949 in connection with the Jagirs there. By virtue of the powers under these Ordinances, the f...
Tag this Judgment!Chandar Das Vs. Malla and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj136
ORDERBapna, J. 1. This is a reference by the learned District Magistrate, Nagaur. 2. On 29th March, 1946 Chandar Dass, complainant, filed a complaint against Malla and four other persons for offences under Sections 426 and 447, Indian Penal Code. The allegations were that the accused entered into his field and demolished a mud-wall, and thereby deprived the complainant of the benefit of the flow of the village water in his field during rains. The accused denied the charge. The case was tried as a summons case by the Third Class Magistrate, Didwana. Ultimately an order of acquittal was recorded on 26th October, 1950 on the complainant's absence on that day. The complainant made an application to the District Magistrate, Nagaur, on 8th December, 1950 for moving the Government to file an appeal against that order. The learned District Magistrate has made this reference on 30th April, 1951. 3. He has mentioned that he took charge on the 22nd April, 1951 and the time left for an appeal was ...
Tag this Judgment!Balmukan and ors. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj123
Wanchoo, C.J.1. These are four connected appeals from the same judgment of the Sessions Judge of Jodhpur in a case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Appeals Nos. 90 and 96 are by Balmukan, 91 by Surjia, and 95 by Sanwaria.2. The prosecution story was briefly this. Mt. Ramjot a young girl of about 14 years of age, had gone from her house in Mochian-ki-ghati, Jodhpur City, at about 11 a.m. on the 2nd of May, 1949, with food for her brother Narain who was working in the 'karkhana' of Narain Dass inside Sojati Gate, Sanwaria appellant is said to have met her outside Tam-bakoo-ki-gali, and asked her to accompany him to bring a gas lamp lying in the public park. She was told that she would be paid some-thing for doing the job. She agreed to the proposal, as she had done such jobs for one Amaria,who deals in gas lamps, and at whose shop Sanwaria appellant used to work. She, therefore, went to the 'karkhana' of Narain Das and left the food she had brought for her brother there, and c...
Tag this Judgment!Sewaram Vs. Government of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj109
Ranawat, J.1. This is an application for a writ of certiorari or mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Madanlal applied to the Rent Controller, Jaipur for grant of a certificate for ejectment in respect of a house against Sewaram who was his tenant, and was in occupation of the premises. The Rent Controller granted a certificate but on appeal the Collector, on the 19th of March, 1951, cancelled the certificate. A revision application was filed by Madanlal in accordance with the provisions of Section 22(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 and the Government set aside the order of the Collector and restored the order of the Rent Controller on the 22nd of August, 1951, and further directed that the landlord be put into possession of the premises which were in the occupation of the tenant. Subsequently the Government amended its order and deleted that portion of it which related to the placing of the landlord into possession of the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Jeewan Ram Vs. United State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj137
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Jeewan Ram under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ or order in the nature of 'mandamus' or prohibition or any other suitable writ against the State of Rajasthan and the Collector of Churu. 2. The application has arisen out of an order by the Collector under the Rajasthan Premises (Requisition and Eviction) Ordinance, 1949 (No. XI (11) of 1949). The Collector has passed an order under Section 3, Sub-section (4) of the Ordinance requisitioning the house of the applicant. The validity of the order has been challenged on various grounds. In the first place, it is submitted that the Ordinance could not remain in force after the 26th of January, 1950, and, therefore, the Collector had no authority to act under it. In the second place, it is urged that the Ordinance is void, as it contravenes Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India, and imposes unreasonable restrictions on the exercise by the applicant of his righ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›