Rajasthan Court January 1952 Judgments
Mt. Chandi Vs. Rampratap
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj144
Bapna, J. 1. This is a revision against a decision of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Jaipur. 2. The petitioner sued the opposite party for recovery of Rs. 180 on the allegations that the plaintiff had Birat Jajmani of Dhobis at Jaipur for the purpose of performing marriages amongst Dhobis and certain other ceremonies, but that as the plaintiff was a woman and an aged lady she made arrangements with the defendant, opposite party, whereby the defendant was to perform the ceremonies relating to the Birat and to pay half of the income to the plaintiff. It was alleged that the defendant continued to make payments as agreed, but failed to do so in respect of 20 marriages performed among Dhobis within a period from, Baisakh Sambat 2005 to Jeth Sambat 2005. It was mentioned that on each of these occasions, the defendant received Rs. 18/- and thus got Rs. 360 in all, of which the plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 180/-. The plaintiff relied upon an agreement dated Posh Sudi 10 Smt. 2003 executedby t...
Tag this Judgment!Chandraram Vs. Bhoma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj167
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Ganganagar.2. The plaintiff had filed a suit against Bhoma defendant-respondent for Rs. 545/-. His ease was that there was an agreement between him and the defendant who had agreed to make a 'kund' for him according to certain specification. He had, therefore, paid Rs. 475/-to the defendant for that purpose. The defendant, however, did not make the 'kund' according to the specification. The suit was, therefore, brought for return of the amount of Rs. 475/-and for another sum of Rs. 70/- on account of certain other items.3. The defence of the defendant was that he had received only Rs. 425/-. He also denied having received the other articles worth Rs. 70/-. Finally, he said that the 'kund' had beenconstructed according to the specification and, therefore, nothing was due from him. The defendant went on to say that he was entitled to Rs. 160/- from the plaintiff. 4 (4) The trial Court came to th...
Tag this Judgment!Keshrimal Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj198
ORDERWanchoo, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Balotra recommending that a criminal case pending against the applicant Keshrimal be stayed pending disposal of a civil suit brought by Keshrimal against Saifal and his brothers.2. The facts of the case are these. Saifal made a report to the police on 22nd of June 1950 that he had been cheated and that Keshri-mal had executed a 'farkhti' in his favour a few days before and antedated it to a date in March 1949. This matter was enquired into by the police and Keshrimal was prosecuted. A charge under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against Keshrimal by the Magistrate. In the meantime, Keshrimal filed a civil suit against Saifal and his brothers for the recovery of a large sum of money and that suit is pending, in the court of the Civil Judge. In the civil suit, Saifal has raised a plea that the 'farkhti', which bears to date in March 1949, was really executed in June 1950 and, therefore, nothing remains...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Bala Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Raj142
ORDER1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Bikaner in a case in which one Bala Prasad was prosecuted under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts of the case may be briefly narrated. Bala Prasad sent an application to the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Bikaner, in April 1950, in which he said that certain persons had murdered an old woman for her money and had thrown her body in a tank and had spread a false rumour that she had left the village. He also said that the body had come afloat on the tank after three days and was quickly cremated and no information was given to the Police about it. The Dy. Inspector General of Police forwarded this application to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gersar, who investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that the information given by Bala Prasad was false and was given with the intention of putting the persons named in the application to harassment. Thereupon, a complaint under Section 182, Indian Penal Code was...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Ponia Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj122
ORDERSharma, J.1. This reference has been made by the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur recommending that the charge-sheet drawn up against the accused Bansi and Mst. Ponia under Section 309, Penal Code be quashed. The only evidence against the accused is that a panchayat was being held on the bank of certain lake when Bansi, brother of Mst. Ponia applicant became unconscious and fell down into the lake. Ponia went to rescue him. This is also in prosecution evidence that the water in the lake was ankle deep. When this is the state of prosecution evidence there was hardly a case for drawing up a charge-sheet under Section 309 (attempt to commit suicide) against any of the two accused. I wonder how the learned Magistrate framed a charge under Section 309 on this evidence. (2) True it is that at the time of drawing up a charge-sheet it is not necessary to consider whether on the evidence the guilt was brought home to the accused beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. This question is to be considered...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Jarao and ors. Vs. Ajudhyanath and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Raj96
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. These are five connected references by the District Magistrate of Jodhpur and arise in the following circumstances : 2. Bhri Govindram Gupta was working as Special Magistrate, Jodhpur Division and five criminal cases which are the subject matter of these five references were pending on his file. He was transferred and was succeeded after some time by Shri Goverdhanchan Bhandari as Special Magistrate. This Magistrate, however, was given only certain limited jurisdiction by the notification appointing him as such and was authorised to deal with such dacoity cases as had been left unfinished by Shri Govindram Gupta. The five cases in which these references have been made were not dacoity cases left unfinished by Shri Govindram Gupta and could not, therefore, be tried by Sri Goverdhanchand Bhandari. He therefore, referred the matter to the District Magistrate of Jodhpur, who ordered these five cases to be transferred to the Court of City Magistrate, Jodhpur. When these cas...
Tag this Judgment!Berisal Singh and ors. Vs. Matadin
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj119
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is a reference by the Addi-tional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, recommending that a composite order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khetri, under Section 145 as well as under Section 118, Criminal P. C. be set aside.2. Matadin, who will hereafter be referred to as the first party, filed an application before the Magistrate that he was in possession of acertain field in village Jasrapur, but Berisal Singh ana others, who would hereafter be referred to as the second party, were disturbinghis possession, and it was apprehended that there would be a breach of the peace, the field be, therefore, attached, pending enquiry, and after the decision, possession might be delivered to him. It was also prayed that the second party be bound down under Section 107, Criminal P. C.3. The learned Magistrate referred the case for a police report, and on the receipt of the police report, he made an order that the second party should show cause why they should not be bound down under ...
Tag this Judgment!Nisar Ahmad Vs. Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur Division and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Raj104
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Nisar Ahmad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The applicant stood as a candidate for election from Ward No. 8 to the Municipality of Jodhpur. Haqiquatullah, opposite party, was a rival candidate for the same ward. The dates for filing nominations were February 21 and 22, 1951 and the date for scrutiny was February 23. The applicant put in his nomination on February 22. On February 23 an objection was raised to the applicant's nomination By Haqiquatullah. This objection was rejected on the same day but the Officer-in-charge, Election, gave detailed reasons for the rejection by his order, dated February 24, 1951.2. Thereafter Haqiquatullah made an appeal against the order accepting the applicant's nomination to the Additional Commissioner who accepted the appeal on the 7th of March 1951 and Held that the nomination of the petitioner was bad and rejected his nomination paper. The applicant made an application for review before the Ad...
Tag this Judgment!Madhoram Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj149
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Madhoram Swami under Article 225 of the Constitution of India. The case of the applicant is that he is an elected member of the Municipal Board, Sardarshahar, and was elected its President on 31-3-1951. On 18-8-1951 he received an order intimating to him that the Municipal Board had been superseded and the Tehsildar had been appointed Administrator till the reconstitution of the Board after fresh elections. Certain reasons were mentioned in the order superseding the Board. The applicant's case is that the order of supersession was mala fide and the Government had conducted no enquiry and had given no chance to the Municipal Board to explain before passing the order.2. The application was opposed by the State of Rajasthan. The case of the State is that there were constant complaints of maladministration by the Municipal Board and it was reported that there was embezzlement of Municipal funds. Onreceipt of these reports, the Government got the a...
Tag this Judgment!Jas Raj Vs. Municipal Board, Bikaner
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj130
1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration and injunction.2. The appellant Jas Raj sued the Municipal Board, Bikaner on 16th July, 1947 on the allegations that he had built an overbridge to connect his two houses situate opposite to each other in Mohalla Girni at Bikaner, which was approved by the Municipal Board on 3rd February 1945, but on complaint by Bherundan to the City Improvement Committee, the Chief Engineer, as Vice-President of the Board, passed an order for its demolition on 21st August 1945 although the said officer had no power to do so. It was alleged that the City Improvement Committee was thereafter dissolved and its functions were vested in the Municipal Board and the said Board also gave notice on 7th June 1947 that the over-bridge be demolished within three days failing which it would be dismantled by the Board at the expense of the appellant. It was alleged that the Municipal Board had no authority to issue such notice, more particularly ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »