Rajasthan Court February 1952 Judgments
Samunder Singh Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj182
Sharma, J.1. These are two appeals, one from jail by Nanga and Samunder Singh, and another on behalf of Samunder Singh, and arise out of a case under Section 395, Penal Code.2. The case for the prosecution was that on 22-3-1949, at about 4 in the evening, a dacoity was committed in village Unti at the shop of one Motilal and at the houses of Gulab Chand and Bansilal. They were all given serious beating, and a lot of valuable property was takenaway from them on camels' back by five persons, viz., Karan Singh, Samunder Singh, Nanga, Kalyan Singh and Bheria. A report of the occurrence was lodged at the police station Bagru in the early hours of 23-3-1949, and during investigation Samunder Singh, Nanga, Baj-rang Singh, Dheer Singh, Nanda and Bheria were arrested. Some property is alleged to have been recovered at the instance of Bajrang Singh from a Bara belonging to him and a camel is also alleged to have been recovered at the instance of Nanga from the possession of one Ladu Jat of villa...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Govindi Bai Vs. Lakshmi Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj136
ORDERSharma, J. 1. This revision has been filed by Mst. Govindi against whom a suit was filed by the opposite party Lakshmi Chand for permanent injunction. The plaintiff Lakshmi Chand filed an application for temporary injunction pending the suit. The injunction was refused by the first Court, but on appeal the learned District Judge, Jaipur City has reversed the order of the first Court and has granted a temporary injunction. The defendant Mst. Govindi has come in revision to this Court. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The opposite party has not appeared. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned District Judge withoutcoming to a finding that there was 'prima facie' case for the plaintiff was not justified in granting temporary injunction. 3. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel. There can be no doubt that the lower Court has not said any where in his judgment that the plaintiff had a 'prima facie' case. In order t...
Tag this Judgment!Duli Chand Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1952
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1575
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. Duli Chand (accused-applicant) stands convicted under Section 376, I.P.C and sentenced to undergo four years' R.I. for committing rape on Mst. Bbagwanti, a girl aged about ten years.3. The two Courts below have come to the finding that rape had been committed on the girl, This is more than obvious from the own evidence of the girl herself and that of her mother as well as that of the Lady Civil Surgeon, who examined her soon after the alleged occurrence. The girl was in an almost collapsed condition, and was white due to the loss of blood. She was about ten years of age, and everything in her vagina was ruptured. She had a lacerated wound on the left wall of her vagina 3' x 1' x ' and another lacerated wound on her perinaeum 1' x ' x ', which were bleeding very profusely. In the opinion of the Lady Civil Surgeon, she had been raped 'completely and badly'. The fact that the girl had been so raped, as a matter of fact has not even been seriou...
Tag this Judgment!Debi and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj49
Sharma, J. 1. These are two appeals one by Debi and Gopi (No. 136 of 1951) and the other by Gyarsa accused (No, 140 of 1951), in a case under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge against the accused was that conjointly with two others, that is, Hukma and Nanda, they committed a dacoity on the 24th of November 1949, in the evening at Taliyari Dungari near Jalaiya outpost. It was alleged that they gave beating to Heera, Ganpat, and Bhura Gujars, who were returning from Bundi after selling Ghee, and robbed them of their clothes, ornaments and cash. A report was lodged on that very day at Kotwali, Bundi, by Heera, one of the victims of the alleged dacoity. Investigation was taken in hand, and the five accused were arrested on different dates between the 21st Jan. 1950, and 25th Jan. 1950, Between 22nd of January 1950, and 21st Feb. 1950, certain property was recovered from the possession, or at the instance of different accused.On the 16th of March 1950, the five accused were p...
Tag this Judgment!Chiranjilal Vs. Sumer Oil Mills
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj134
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is an application in revision by the defendant Chiranjilal against whom the plaintiff opposite party filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 35,143/10/- as damages for breach of contract. The contract was entered into between the parties at Udaipur on 14-7-1949 for the supply of 'til' seeds to the plaintiff. The terms of the contract which are relevant for the purposes of the case at this stage are as follows :1. Railway Receipt would be sent through Bank to Kishangarh and the purchaser would at once take delivery of it. 2. Seller is responsible for having the Railway Receipt prepared. 2. The defendant raised an objection in the lower Court that the Jaipur Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the property was to be delivered at Ratlam and the contract was entered into at Udaipur. The suit could therefore be filed either at Udaipur or at Ratlam. The plaintiff replied that the seller was responsible for having the Railway Receipt prepared and sent to the...
Tag this Judgment!Mukania and anr. Vs. Achalia and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Raj160
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Balotra and has arisen in the following circumstances: 2. Two goats belonging to Rawal Khanger Singh were stolen on the night between 8th and 9th October, 1948, In tnat connection Sardara and Mukania went to the 'Dhani' of Achalia and others and made enquiries. It is said that there was an altercation between Sardara and Mukania on the one side and Achalia and others on the other, with the result that Sardara and Mukania were attacked by Achalia and others. The police investigated the matter and prosecuted three persons namely, Achalia, Nagia and Nawia under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Mukania, however was not satisfied with that prosecution and filed a complaint against nine persons. These included Achalia, Nagia and Nawia who were prosecuted by the police, two other men Mohabatia and Kir-tia and four women. Both the police case as well as the complaint case were before the same Magistrate. The Magistra...
Tag this Judgment!Harlal and ors. Vs. Subhkaran and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Raj134
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Harlal for review of judgment of the Ijlas-i-khas of the former State of Jodhpur and has come to us for disposal in view of the provisions of Ordinance No. XL of 1949 and Ordinance No. XII of 1950. 2. The application was made in the following circumstances. A suit had been filed by one Bhoordan for redemption of certain mortgaged property and Harlal was one of the defendants. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. Then there was an appeal to the Judicial Superintendent of Phalodi which was also dismissed. The matter went in second appeal to the High Court, of the former State of Jodhpur and the High Court set aside the decree of the two lower Courts and dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the mortgage set up. Thereupon, there was an appeal to the Ijlas-i-khas which was heard on the 18th of March 1948 and was accepted on the 26th of December, 1948 by His Highness the Maharaja of the former State of Jodhpur on the...
Tag this Judgment!Akhey Singh Vs. Mahaveer Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Raj190
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Thakur Akhey Singh against the judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the High Court of- the former State of Jodhpur. It has come before us for hearing under the provisions of Ordinance No. XL of 1949 & Ordinance No. XII of 1950. The appellant is the representative-in-interest of the defendant in the suit.2. The suit was filed by Mutha Sumer Chandji, who is now represented in this appeal by his successors Mahaveer Chand and Shanti Chand. The case of the plaintiff was that Durjan Singhji, the father of the original defendant Sanwat Singh, had executed a registered deed of lease on Besakh Sudi 10, Smt. 1997 corresponding to 6th of May, 1941, in favour of the plaintiff. By this deed, Durjain Singhji pleased out two villages, namely, Lavera Chhota, and Kajnau Bari, to the plaintiff for a period of 24 years. The plaintiff came in possession of the villages in July 1941, but the Thikana was taken under the Court of Wards in February, 1942, and therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Behari Dass Vs. Jagdish and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj7
Bapna, J. 1. The appellant brought a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Pratapgarh, for a declaration that he was the Mahant of Vairagis of Pratapgarh and 'in that capacity was entitled to claim certain dues from the defendants on the occasions of certain ceremonies mentioned in the plaint. He also claimed Rs. 10/- on account of the 'Bhandara' of the father of defendant No. 1, which according to the plaintiff had been wrongly realised by the defendants Nos. 2 to 5. All the defendants except Jugaldas denied the claim. Jugaldas, defendant No. 3, admitted being liable for Rs. 10/- to the plaintiff. The court passed a decree against Jugaldas for Rs. 10/- but dismissed the entire suit against the rest of the defendants. The plaintiff, thereupon, filed an appeal before the District Judge of Pratapgarh but it was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The plaintiff has filed this second appeal and it is contended that the view of law taken by the learned District Judge is no...
Tag this Judgment!Harji Vs. Revenue Board of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Raj132
Ranawat, J.1. The facts of this case appear in the order of reference and it is not necessary to repeat them here. It would suffice to say that an application made by Harji under Section 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, for reinstatement was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tonk, and a revision application, which was filed by the landlord against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, was dismissed by the Rajasthan Board of Revenue. The landlord then filed a review application which was accepted and the order for reinstatement passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was set aside. The tenant then filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court. The question then arose whether in a case under the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance the Rajasthan Board of Revenue was competent to review its own judgment. A Division Bench of this Court, as the question was of general importance, referred the following point to a Ful...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›