Rajasthan Court July 1951 Judgments
Sewa Ram Vs. Misrimal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj12
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is a revision by Sewa Ram against an order of the District Judge of Pali.2. The facts, which have led to this revision, are these. A suit had been filed by Misrimal and others against the applicant. It was fixed for hearing on the 29th of July, 1950. On that date, the applicant was absent, and an order was passed that the suit should proceed 'ex parte', and the written statement of the applicant should be struck off. When the matter came up again for hearing on the 23rd of August, 1950, the applicant appeared, and it was contended on his behalf that the 'ex parte' order was only for that day, viz., the 29th of July, 1950, and that the applicant could appear in the suit thereafter without having the 'ex parte' order set aside. The learned District Judge, however, held that the applicant should not appear in the suit so long as the 'ex parte' order stood, and that he had to apply for setting aside the 'ex parte' order of the 29th of July, 1950. Eventually, the Distr...
Tag this Judgment!Jeet Mal and anr. Vs. Nand Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj10
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is a reference by the Civil Judge of Udaipur in a civil suit No. 147 of 2005 Samvat. The suit was for pre-emption. An objection was raised by the defendant that in view of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India, read with Article 13(1), the right or custom of pre-emption was inconsistent with these provisions and the suit should be dismissed on this ground. The Civil Judge thereupon said in his order that he had read Article 13(1) and Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and was of the opinion that the question related to the interpretation of the Constitution and was of great public importance. Consequently, he sent the file to this Court under Section 113 of the Civil P. C. This order was passed on the 28th of August, 1950.2. We arc of the opinion that this reference was completely incompetent on the date on which it was made. The learned Civil Judge who looked up Section 113 of the Civil P. C. never cared to look up Order XLVI Rule 1 which provided the p...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Das and ors. Vs. Rikhab Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj72
Nawal Kishore, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal and although the question, involved is short, the narration of a few facts appears to be indispensable in order to show how it emerges. The defendants are the mortgagees with possession of a half share in two shops, the mortgage having been effected in their favour on 19th of March 1920 by Lalchand for Rs. 600/-. One of the terms of the mortgage was that interest and rent will be equal and will be adjusted against each other. On 19th of August 1930, Lalchand sued for possession of the shops by redemption and succeeded in obtaining a decree in spite of the resistance offered to him by the defendants, on 6th of February, 1934 on payment of Rs. 617/14/6. Nearly 9 years after this decree, an application was made by Rikhab-chand, legal representative of Lalchand, who had in the meantime died, praying for extension of time for deposit of the amount fixed by the decree. The application was rejected on the ground that it was barred by tim...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Ram and anr. Vs. Mt. Nathi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj39
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application for review of a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court. The facts, which have given riae to this application, are these. A suit had been brought by Hari Ram and his eon, Sukanraj, for redemption of a mortgage, against Mohan Lal and Mt. Nathi. Mohan Lal was the original mortgagee, while Mt. Nathi was the person in possession of the house to be redeemed at the time the suit was filed. The case of the applicants was that Mt. Nathi was merely a sub-mortgagee, and they were, therefore, entitled to possession from her. Mt. Nathi's case, on the other hand, was that the house had been sold orally by Hari Ram to the original mortgagee, Mohan Lal, and thereafter Mohan Lal had mortgaged the house to her, and later made a sale deed in her favour. As such, she claimed to be the owner of the house.2. The trial Court framed as many as ten issues, of which two, namely, issues NOS. 1 and 6, are relevant for present purposes. The first issue was :'Whether the ...
Tag this Judgment!Hasti Mal and anr. Vs. Shanker Dan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj7
Bapna, J.1. This is a reference by a Division Bench of this Court and raises certain important questions.2. The appellant sued the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 700/- on the basis of a 'Khata' dated 'Chait Sudi' 12, 'Samwat' 1925. The defendant pleaded, 'inter alia', that the document was a mere acknowledgment and could not form the basis of the suit The trial Court accepted the defence and dismissed the suit, and the same judgment was upheld on appeal. The second appeal came up for hearing before a Single Judge of this Court, who referred the question'Whether acknowledgment of a previous debt not ba Ted by limitation could be the basis of a suit?'to a Division Bench. In the meanwhile, the same question came up for decision in 'Kanraj v. Vijey Singh', 1950 R L W 234 before another Division Bench, and it was held that : 'An acknowledgment of liability only allowed extension of limitation if made before expiration of the period of limitation but did not create a new right. It d...
Tag this Judgment!Nauratan Mal and ors. Vs. Hari Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj90
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Nauratan Mal, Vallabh Dass, and another under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying that the delay in the filing of the appeal be condoned. The decree against which the appeal is filed was made on the 17th of March, 1949. The application for copy was made on the 14th of April 1949, and copy was ready on the 23rd of April, 1949, and was taken away on the same day. The appeal was filed on the 4th of July, 1949. It was within time upto the 25th of June, 1949, arid was thus filed 9 days beyond time. 2. The applicants filed an affidavit in support of their application, in which they showed the following grounds for the delay: (1) Nauratan Mal had been ill from before the 19th of May, 1949, and remained in hospital from the 19th of May, 1949 to the 23rd of June 1949 and was bedridden. (2) The father of the counsel, who was appearing in the trial Court, died about the 19th of May, 1949 and the counsel himself fell ill on the 25th of May 1949. (3) ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopichand and Prabhu Dayal Vs. Meenalal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj5
Sharma, J.1. These are three appeals which arise out of two suits for pre-emption of a property situated in Chowkri Bisheshwarji Rasta Gopalji Jaipur City sold by Hanuman prashad defendant in favour of Mina Lal (hereinafter to be called the vendee) as per sale-deed, dated 7th December 1942 and registered on 16th June, 1943. One of the suits namely 149 of St. 2,000 was filed by Prabhoo Dayal who hereinafter will be referred to as the first pre-emptor and the other that is 150 of St. 2000 was filed by Gopichand who will hereinafter be referred to as the second pre-emptor. Both the suits were filed in the Court of City Sub-Judge, Jaipur on the 1st July, 1944. The sale consideration was Rs. 2,599/- and the property sold is represented by letters A & B on the ground floor and letters Y and X on the second and third floor respectively in the sketch map Ex. A 3 filed in the suit No. 150 and is coloured red. It is the part of a big Haveli.2. The claim of each of the pre-emptors is that he has ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwarlal Vs. Gyarsi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj4
Sharma, J.1. The applicant Bhanwarlal, who is the son of the original appellant Gogaram, has filed this application for restoration of the appeal dismissed for default of the appellant on the 14th November 1950. The grounds for restoration are that while the appeal was dismissed for default Gogeram was lying ill and died a few days after. The applicant had no knowledge of the dismissal for default.2. This application was made on the 5th February 1951 when 30 days prescribed for an application for restoration of an appeal or a suit had expired. The application was apparently time barred. The learned counsel for the applicant has however argued that the applicant had 90 days to apply for substitution of his name in place of the deceased appellant after his death. The death occurred on 3rd December 1951 and the application for substitution having been made on 9th January 1951 and the application for restoration on 5th February 1951 both were in time. The learned counsel for the applicant ...
Tag this Judgment!Madhusudhan Vs. Shyam Dass
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj3
Ranawat, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Certain premises were let by Pandit Madhusudan to Shyamdas on a rent of Rs. 35/- per month and the tenant thinking that the rent was too high filed an application in the Court of the Rent Controller on the 3rd of May 1949 for fixation of standard rent, and after taking proceedings in this case the Rent Controller on the 24th of January 1950 fixed the rent of the premises at Rs. 10/- per month exclusive of light and water. Both parties Went in appeal to the Court of the Collector, Jaipur, who, on the 27th of April 1950, increased the vent to Rs. 12/- but included therein the charges for light. Pt. Madhusudhan who is the landlord has now come before this Court in revision and he has raised three objections: (1) That the Rent Controller did not frame any issues before deciding the case. (2) That the Rent Controller and the Collector both acted illegally in the exercise of their jurisdiction in determini...
Tag this Judgment!Hukmi Chand Vs. Mt. Bhanwari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj51
Bapna, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge, Nagaur, refusing to grant letters of administration with the will annexed in respect of the estate of one Lakshmi Chand of Nagaur. 2. Hukmi Chand, who is the brother of the deceased Lakshmi Chand, applied to the District Judge for grant, of letters of administration with the will annexed, and produced a will stated to have been executed by Lakshmi Chand on the 15th of January, 1948. The will was a registered one, having been registered on the 23rd of January, 1948. Lakshmi Chand died on the 11th of February, 1948, and the petition was presented on the 31st of August, 1948. The petition was opposed by Mt. Bhanwari, widow of Lakshmi Claand. The learned District Judge found that the will had been duly executed by Lakshmi Chand, and that Lakshmi Chand was not so ill on the date as not to be in full possession of his senses. He, however, refused to grant the letters of administration with the will annexed on the ground t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›