Rajasthan Court April 1951 Judgments
Mt. Sehdat and ors. Vs. Abduljabar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Raj155
ORDERNawal Kishore, J.1. This is a revision by the defts. against the order of the learned Addl. Sub-Judge, calling upon them to pay court-fees on the sum of Rs. 8,650/8/6 claimed on account of repairs & improvements carried out by them in the house in dispute.2. It seems from the facts alleged on the record that in Smt. 1981, the house in dispute had been mortgaged by the fathers of pltfs., defts. 7 & 10 to Allabanda, father of defts. 14 & 15 for Rs. 3051/. In Smt. 1998, the house was sold by the pltfs, mother as guardian for the plffs. who were minors at the time & by defts. 5, 6 and 7 & guardian of deft. 10 to defts. 1 to 4, the petitioners in this Ct., & out of the sale proceeds, the mortgage amount was paid out. In Smt. 2002, pltfs. Abdul Zabarkhan & Abdul Shakoor Khan filed the present suit for possession of one-third share of the house in dispute by cancellation of the sale on the ground that their mother as de facto guardian was not authorized to dispose it of, & therefore, the...
Tag this Judgment!Chandmal Vs. Baburmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Raj150
Nawalkishore, J.1. This is an appeal by the D. H. against the order of the learned Dist. J. holding that the petition for execution preferred by him in the court of the Munsif was barred by time.2. It seems that on 6-2-1942 Chandmal appellant obtained an ex parte decree against Baburmal. No appeal was preferred from this decree by the J. D. & instead he filed an application for having it set aside but it was dismissed. On appeal to the High Court, there was a compromise & an order was passed on 11-11-1943 that if Baburmal paid Rs. 40/- as costs to the D. H. within fifteen days & gave security for due performance of the decree that may be passed against him within one month, the ex parte decree will be set aside otherwise it will stand. The J. D. did not comply with this order & when an application for execution of the decree was filed on 8-4-1945, he objected on the ground that since limitation ran from the date of the decree, it was barred by time. The learned Munsif repelled this obj...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Bux Vs. Dev Dutt
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj111
Ranawat, J. 1. Hanuman Bux filed a suit against Dev Dutt in the Court of Munsil Jaipur west on the 21st July, 1948 for Rs. 30/- as arrears of rent and Rs. 100/- as damages for the use and occupation of the premises from the 1st of June 1948 to 20th of July 1948 at the rate of Rs. 2/- per day. The defendant admitted the liability of Rs. 30/- as rent but contested that he was not liable to pay any damages at the rate of Rs. 2/- per day. For the period for which the plaintiff claimed damages at a higher rate, the defendant only admitted the liability to pay at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month. The trial Court held that the defendant was liable to pay damages at the rate at which the plaintiff made a claim against him by virtue of the notice that was served by the plaintiff upon the defendant. In appeal, the District Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court and held that on account of the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Rent Control Order. 1947, the plaintiff was debarred from cla...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Ram Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Raj158
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Nathu Ram for transfer of a criminal case from the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bali, to some other court in the same district. The matter came up before one of us on 2-2-1951. It appears that the applicant had not applied to the District Magistrate under Section 528, Criminal P. C, & came direct to this court for transfer under Section 526 of the same Code. Learned counsel urged that the applicant was entitled to come direct to this court under Section 526, & relied on two cases in support of his submission. Therefore, the point was referred to a Division Bench for disposal, & has thus come before us.2. It is not denied that before the amendment of Section 526 by the addition of Sub-section (8) in 1923, the practice in all the High Courts in India was that an application under Section 526 was not entertained unless the applicant had first moved the District Magistrate under Section 526 or wanted a transfer outside the district. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Amar NaraIn Mathur Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj42
ORDER: An application has been filed by the Govt. Advocate giving some reasons for the withdrawal of case No. 9 against Shri Mathura Dass Mathur & Shri Kapurchand Mangal. In addition, an affidavit has been filed, sworn by the Law Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan, to the effect that there are some other reasons of State which it, would not be desirable to disclose in the public interest. In view of the reasons disclosed & also in view of the affidavit of the Law Secretary, we are of the opinion that case No. 9 against Shri Mathura Das Mathur & Shri Kapurchand Mangal should also be allowed to be withdrawn. We allow this & the order, dated 19-1-1951 would stand.22. This revision is accordingly dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Manakchand Vs. Pannalal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Raj152
ORDERNawalkishore, J.1. The only question calling for determination in this revn. is whether the learned Dist. J. was competent in law to direct Manakchand petnr. to deposit the sum of Rs. 1482/8/- on account of rent on the appln. tiled by the receiver to that effect on 10-9-1949.2. This matter has arisen out of a suit for dissolution of partnership & rendition of accounts between Manakchand on the one hand & Indermal & Manmohan on the other. During the course of the suit 19-12-1947, Ramratan was appointed as a receiver & in that capacity he took charge of the property of the firm including the shop which was subsequently taken on rent from him by Manakchand on Rs. 125/- per mensem. Rent was not paid & accordingly, the receiver applied to the Ct. of the learned Dist. J. that orders regarding the recovery of the total amount due on account of rent may be passed against Manak Chand. A notice was issued to Manakchand & he raised a number of objections, the most important being that he was...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahim Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj33
Nawal Kishore, J.1. This is a petition by Abdul Rahim, son of Himmat Khan, Singh Muslim of village Bandasar, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India & Section 491, Criminal P. C., for the issue of a writ of 'habeas corpus', & is based on the following three principal grounds:(1) That on 10/11-1-1951, an order was issued by the Govt. of Rajasthan for the arrest & detention of one Shri Adring, son of Himta, under Section 3, Preventive Detention Act, 1950, for a period of one year, & was served upon the petitioner on 16-1-1951. Inasmuch as the order related to one Adring & the petitioner's name was Abdul Rahim, it had no connection with him, & accordingly the petitioner's detention was illegal. (2) That the order of detention was not in accordance with law, inasmuch as it had not been expressly passed in the name of His Highness the Rajpramukh as required by Article 166 of the Constitution, & had been simplysigned by the Home Secretary. (3) That the grounds of detention supplied to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›