Rajasthan Court April 1952 Judgments
Damodar and anr. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj127
Sharma, J. 1. These are two appeals, one by Damodar and the other by Sheonath accused, against their conviction under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Damodar has been sentenced to five years' and Sheonath to four years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The case for the prosecution was that on or about 18th July, 1950, Damodar accused kidnapped Mst. Bachi, a girl about 10 years old on the allurement that if she accompanied the accused to his village, she would be given 'laddoos' and 'puris' to eat. Eachi often visited the house of the accused Damodar for playing with Mst. Munni. Damodar's daughter. At first Damodar kept Mst. Bachi confined in his house at Jaipur for two or three days, and thereafter he took Bachi and his daughter Munni to Chandera and offered her in marriage at first to Balu and then to Todia at village Chandera provided that they paid him a substantial amount of money, taut both refused. Sheonath accused was also called to Chandera. An attempt was made to give the girl B...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunandanlal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Raj184
Ranawat, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Raghunandanlal and three others against an order of the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Rajasthan, dated the 2nd December 1950. Jt is alleged by the petitioners that a shop had been mortgaged in favour of Girdharilal the father of the petitioners, by Mohd. Taqi, Kasim Ali, Riazul Hasan, Khurshed Ali and Amjad Ali some time before the year 1941. The mortgagors left India and went to Pakistan. Under Section 4 of the Matsya Evacuee Property Ordinance the equity of redemption which belonged to the Muslim evacuees vested in the Custodian of the evacuee properties and under Section 5 (2) of the Rajasthan Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 any evacuee property which had vested in any person exercising the powers of a custodian under the Matsya Ordinance which had been repealed by the Rajasthan Ordinance is to be deemed' to have vested in the Custodian appointed under the Rajasthan Ordinance. ...
Tag this Judgment!Jago Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj117
ORDERWanchoo, J.1. This is a revision by Jago against his conviction under Section 406, Penal Code. The applicant was convicted by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Nohar and his appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Ganganagar. Hence this revision. 2. The prosecution story was briefly this. One Purkha Jat was approached by one Gyana Jat in village Dhanasar and asked him if he wanted to purchase opium. Purkha agreed to purchase ten seers of opium at Rs. 250 per seer. Gyana thereupon wanted Purkha to pay up the whole price in advance. Purkha refused to do so and gave only Rs. 100 as advance. It was settled that the opium would be delivered after ten days and thereupon the balance of the price would be paid. When the period was over, Purkha wanted Gyana to deliver opium. But Gyana said that he could not do so unless he was paid the entire price in advance. Purkha was not prepared to trust Gyana with such a large amount but agreed that he would deposit the balance with some reliabl...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Devi Vs. Muthralal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Raj188
ORDERWanchoo, C.J.1. This is a revision by Mt. Lakshmi Devi in a Small Cause Court matter. A suit was brought by Muthra Lal for recovery of Rs. 200/- in the following circumstances. The applicant Mt. Lakshmi Devi had brought a suit against Dr. Onkar Lal and others. In that suit, she had to file security and Muthra Lal stood surety for the applicant for the sum of Rs. 200/-. Mt. Lakshmi Devi lost that suit and there was a decree of costs to the extent of Rs. 203/- against her. In execution of that decree Muthralal had to pay Rs. 200 to the decree-holders as he had stood surety for costs. After this amount had been paid, Muthra Lal wanted Mt. Lakshmi Devi to repay him the money. She refused to do so & consequently this suit was brought by Muthra Lal in the Small Cause Court, Udaipur. The suit has been decreed and hence this revision.2. The first point that has been urged is that the amount of Rs. 200/- has been paid back. That is, however, a question of fact and the trial court came to t...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Manohari Vs. Ramchandra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj113
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This was an appeal by Mst. Manohari to the Ijlas-i-khas of the former State of Bikaner and has come to us in view of the provisions of Ordinances 40 of 1949 and 12 of 1950.2. The facts may be narrated briefly. Mst. Manohari was married to Ramchandra. She brought a suit for maintenance in June 1942 alleging that she had been turned out by her husband who had married again. She, therefore, prayed for maintenance from her husband. She had also impleaded her husband's brother Birbal and wanted maintenance from him as well. There was also an allegation that certain ornaments of her had been entrusted to Birbal and that she should be given a decree for those ornaments. So far, however, as Birbal is concerned, the District Judge of Charu, who tried the suit, as well as the High Court of the former State of Bikaner came to the conclusion that no ornaments had been entrusted to Birbal and that Birbal was not in any case responsible for giving any maintenance to Mst. Manohari. So...
Tag this Judgment!Lalchand Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Raj10
Sharma, J. 1. This is an application by Lalchand who is being prosecuted in the Court of the First Assistant City Magistrate, Jaipur, for an offence under Section 6 read with Section 8, Jaipur Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act of 1947, hereinafter to be referred to as the Jaipur Act, on the allegation that he exported certain iron girders from Jaipur West Railway Station to Pokaran in Marwar on 5-4-1949 in contravention of Section 5 (a) of the Iron and Steel Control (Production and Distribution) Order of 1947, hereinafter to be referred to as the Jaipur Order. One Nanulal was also challaned along with him but he was discharged by the learned Magistrate. Lalchand has come in revision tothis Court and the following two points are raised on his behalf: 1. that the Jaipur Act was repealed on the 20th July 1949 by the Rajasthan Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, 1949, hereinafter to be referred to as the Rajasthan Ordinance, which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette...
Tag this Judgment!Gheesa Lal Vs. Molia and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Raj159
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Gheesa Lal against the decree of the District Judge of Nagaur. The appeal is only with respect to interest and the appellant has raised four points.2. The Khata on the basis of which the suit was filed carried interest at 24 per cent per annum. The Court has however, decreed interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and the first contention of the appellant is that he should be allowed interest at the contractual rate. Secondly it is being urged that the Court has miscalculated the amount of interest even treating the rate as 12 per cent, and that this should be corrected. Thirdly it is said that the Court has given no reason for not allowing pendente lite interest and this Court should, therefore, grant pendente lite interest. Lastly, it is contended that future interest should also be allowed as the Court below disallowad future interest by not saying anything about it.3. The main question in this appeal is whether the Court below was justifie...
Tag this Judgment!Rajmal and anr. Vs. Mt. Pepkanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Raj178
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Rajmal and Manmal for review of judgment of the Ijlas-i-Khas of the former State of Jodhpur and has come up to us for disposal in view of the provisions of Ordinance No. XL. (40) of 1949 and Ordinance No. XII (12) of 1950.2. The application was made in the following circumstances. Rajmal and Manmal were decree-holders and put their decree in execution in the Court of the District Judge. While the execution proceedings were pending, the estate or the judgment-debtor Jalam Singh, who is now represented by his legal representatives, was taken over by the Court of Wards. The usual notice was then issued by the Court of Wards inviting claims against the estate of the judgment-debtor in the prescribed manner. No claim was said to have been presented by the decree-holders though the District Judge had sent information to the Court of Wards about the decree in execution.Ultimately the estate was discharged from the superintendence of the Court of Wards...
Tag this Judgment!Rangraj and ors. Vs. Gram Panchayat, Khinwel
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Raj144
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Rangraj and seven others under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus and prohibition against the Gram Panchayat, Khinwel through its Sarpanch Chunnilal. The State of Rajasthan has also been made a party to the application. 2. It is unnecessary to give in detail all the points raised in the application and we propose to confine ourselves to the main argument on behalf of the applicants based on Section 4 of the Marwar Village Panchayats Act, 1945. That argument is that the Panchayat which is functioning invillage Khinwel and has imposed certain taxes since January 1950 is not a properly constituted body, as no notification under Section 4 of the Act was ever issued establishing a Panchayat in that village. The Marwar Village Panchayats Act, 1945 came into force on the 1st January 1946. Section 4 of that Act reads as follows: 'The Minister in Charge may, by notification in the Jodhpur Government Gazette, establish a pan...
Tag this Judgment!Udaimal Vs. Hastimal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Raj161
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an Ijlas-i-Khas appeal by Udaimal and has come up before us in view of the provisions of Ordinances XL of 1949 and XII of 1950. 2. The case out of which this appeal has arisen was a simple suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. A second appeal came to the High Court of the former State of Jodhpur and was decided in favour of the defendants. Thereupon, there was an application to that Court for leave to appeal to the Ijlas-i-Khas, which came up before another learned Judge and that learned Judge granted a certificate for leave to appeal under Rule 19 of the Ijlas-i-Khas Rules of the former State of Marwar. Rule 19 provides for appeals in cases in which the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance was Rs. 4000/- or more, and the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Highness was also Rs. 4000/- or more, or the decree involved directly or indirectly some claim to, or some question respecting prop...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »