Rajasthan Court August 1951 Judgments
Ramjiwan Vs. Maddye Khan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj99
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is an application by Ram Jiwan complainant, to revise the order of the learned Extra Magistrate, Jaipur District discharging the accused opposite party. The complaint was under Section 382 of the Penal Code and alleged that a pair of bullocks which had been purchased by the complainant from Sunder Lal had been forcibly seized from the possession of the complainant's son Chajju on the 14th May, 1949.2. The learned Magistrate took proceedings under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which Chajju and Ganga Bux were examined. The accused was summoned under Section 427 of the Penal Code. In the presence of the accused, the statements of Ramjiwan complainant, Sunderlal, the seller of the bullocks, Govind Narain his son and Raghunath and Panchya and Bhonrilal were recorded. Raghunath and Panchya deposed that it was in their presence that the bullocks were seized by the accused from the possession of Chajju and Ganga Bux. Bhonrilal deposed that the bullocks...
Tag this Judgment!Khot Vs. the Rajasthan State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj87
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Khot alias K. G. Lakhani under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ in the nature of 'quo warranto', or such other order as may be appropriate, be issued against the Rajasthan State and 13 others, calling upon them to show cause by what authority opposite parties Nos. 2 to 14 claim to act as convener and members of an 'ad hoc' committee exercising the powers of President and members respectively of the Municipal Board, Jodhpur, and forbidding them from so acting, it they are unable to show such authority.2. The facts, which have led to this application, may be briefly narrated. There is a Municipal Board established for the City of Jodhpur under the Jodhpur Municipal Act, 1943. This Municipal Board has been constituted under Section 7 of the Act of 1943 as a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and the power of acquiring, holding and transferring property, movable or immovable & of contracting. T...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Magha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj97
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of one Magha of an offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. We have heard the Assistant Government Advocate at length, and are of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. 2. The prosecution story was briefly this. Sagar Mal, who was a co-accused with Magha, is the son of one Deep Chand. It is said that this Sagar Mal stole some ornaments, which were kept in a certain place in the house, while his father was away. After stealing these ornaments, he took them to Magha, who keeps a shop for groceries, and also works as a 'Sunar'. He is said to have given these ornaments to Magha, and took Rs. 3/- from him in return. When Beepchand returned home, his other children informed him that Sagar Mal appeared to be in funds. So he tried to make sure that nothing had been removed from the house, and when he was doing so, he discovered that ornaments worth Rs. 1575 had been removed. He then questioned Sagar Mal, who...
Tag this Judgment!Kewal Mal Singhi Vs. Heta Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj17
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Kewal Mal Singhi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of 'mandamus' and 'certiorari' and 'prohibition' or any of these or any other order that may be appropriate to be issued' to the State of Rajasthan. 2. The facts, on which the present petition is based, are these. The applicant was serving as Section Superintendent in the Audit Department of the former State of Jodhpur under an order of appointment of the Finance Minister of Jodhpur, and under the Rules of service operative in Jodhpur on the 1st November, 1948. Under these Rules, he was entitled to continue in service till the completion of the age of 55 years, and was a permanent member of the public services of the former Jodhpur State. On the formation of the present State of Rajasthan on the 7th of April, 1949, the applicant continued to be employed in the service of the State of Rajasthan from that date in the Audit Department on a salary of Rs. 168/- per m...
Tag this Judgment!Jetharam and ors. Vs. Hazarimal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj28
Bapna, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of the former covenanting State of Jodhpur, and, was filed before the Ijlas-i-khas and. transferred to this Court by virtue of the provisions of Ordinance No. XL of 1949 read with Ordinance No. XII of 1950. 2. The respondent Hazarimal sued the appellant Jetharam for specific performance of a contract of sale of a house situated at Jodhpur and more particularly described in the plaint, on the basis of an agreement of sale Ex. P-1, dated the29th January 1941. Rugnath Das and his three sons were impleaded as defendants Nos. 2 to 5 as mortgagees of the property. Laduram and Jaitulal, sons of Jetharam defendant, and their minor sons were impleaded as defendants Nos. 6 to 12 on, their own application. Defendant No. 1 and defendants Nos. 6 to 12 filed separate written statements but have taken identical pleas. They contested the suit on the following grounds; (1) that Jetharam was a person of weak intellect and h...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Kayam and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Raj41
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the order of Shri Abdul Zalil Kazi, First Class Magistrate, Bhinmal, acquitting Kayam and Hakiya, opposite parties of an offence under Section 326, Penal Code.2. The prosecution story was briefly this. Jiwan was working at a well in village Sedwa. The two opposite parties, Kayam and Hakiya, and a third person Abdulla, came together to the well, and Abdulla asked Jiwan to stop taking water from the well. Thereafter, Kayam caught hold of the hair of Jiwan's head, and Hakiya hit Jiwan with an axe. Abdulla also hit him with a lathi. A report of this Incident was made at Thana Sedwa within half an hour. The opposite parties pleaded not guilty. Hakiya's story was that he was working at the well, when Yusuf and Jiwan came, and abused him and hit him with lathies. Then people intervened, and saved him. He denied, however, that he had hit Jiwan with an axe. Kayam also denied having taken part in the incident. His statement was that he belon...
Tag this Judgment!Keshav Lal Vs. Gaveria
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj50
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Keshav Lal in the following circumstances:2. The applicant had filed a revision in this Court. That application was listed tor admission on the 17th of January, 1951. The order of Gupta J. on that date was in these words:'Petitioner and his counsel absent despite service. There is no one to press this petition which is hereby dismissed, in limine.'Thereupon, the present application was made on the same day by Keshav Lal in which it was pointed out that the case was listed in the list of Bapna J. The counsel therefore waited in the Court in which Bapna J. was working in a Division Bench. Before, however, Bapna J. could be free from the Division Bench, the counsel was surprised to learn that the case had been sent to the Court of Gupta J. The counsel then rushed to the Court of Gutpa J. but by then the revision had been dismissed by the order which has been set out above. Consequently, it was prayed that the revision be restored.3. The matter cam...
Tag this Judgment!Gokulchand Vs. Government of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj112
Ranawat, J. 1. These are two applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As the same points are at issue in both the applications they are disposed of by one judgment.2. Miscellaneous application No. 33 of 1950 has been filed on behalf of Shrimati Bitto Devi and Miscellaneous application No. 28 of 1950 has been filed on behalf of Seth Gokulchand. The opposite parties in both the applications are (1) Government of Rajasthan, (2) Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Rajasthan, (3) Municipality, Dholpur.3. The facts of Shrimati Bitto Devi's case are that she purchased three plots of land adjacent to her house from the Dholpur Municipality on the 17th of November 1948 on payment of Rs. 413/10/-. Permission to construct houses on the three plots was obtained from the Dholpur Municipality on the 6th June 1949 which was again renewed on the 16th of November 1949. On the 6th of January 1950 a notice was served upon the petitioner by the Secretary, Municipality cancelli...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Lal Vs. Fakrudin
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj93
Bapna, J.1. This is the defendant's second appeal in a suit for ejectment against an order of remand.2. The respondent Fakrudin sued the defendant-appellant in the Court of the Munsif, Chhoti Sadri for ejectment from a shop alleged to have been leased to the appellant by the respondent on Chait Sud 11 S. 2000. He also claimed Rs. 142/8/- as damages for use and occupation till the date of suit. The suit was instituted on the 31st of December, 1944. The defendant raised several pleas including (1) that the plaintiff was not the owner of the shop in dispute, (2) that the rent note had been got executed by the plaintiff by fraud and (3) that he was not liable to ejectment so long as he was ready and willing to pay the rent.3. During the pendency of the suit, an Ordinance was promulgated by H. H. the Raj Pramukh of the former Rajasthan known as The United States of Rajasthan Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Ordinance, 1948 (No. XXII (22) of 1948), on 26th of July, 1948. The defendant reli...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Shakur Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj54
ORDERRanawat, J. 1. This is a reference of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. A chalan was presented in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jhalawar, by the police against one Fakir Mohammad under Section 109, Criminal P.C., on the 13th of February 1950, the Sub-divisional Magistrate made on order under Section 112, Criminal P C., calling upon Fakir Mohammad to show cause why he should not be asked to furnish security for good behaviour. At the same time, an order under Section 117 (3) Criminal P.C., was also made demanding Security from Fakir Mohammad for good behaviour until the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 109, Criminal P.C. Fakir Mohammad who was in detention at that time agreed to furnish security as was desired by the Court and Abdul Shakur stood surety for him. Fakir Mohammad was released after a bond was executed by Abdul Shakur both for his good behaviour and for his attendance in Court during the further proceedings in the case. On the next date w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »