Rajasthan Court May 1952 Judgments
Hardeva Vs. Lachmminarain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-1952
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1005
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk, recommending that the conviction of the accused Hardeva under Section 341, I. P. C. and sentence of Rs. 25/- fine by the Extra Magistrate, Uniara, as well as his order requiring the accused to maintain the passage through plot No. 447/2 and to remove the wall obstructing the passage be set aside.2. Nobody appears on behalf of the accused. I have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant, who opposes the reference. Mr. R, A. Gupta on behalf of the State also says that the ground on which the reference has been made is not sound. The opinion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Is that because the accused obstructed the carts alone, the offence of wrongful restraint is not made out, as the said offence is committed against a person and not a vehicle. He has relied upon a ruling of a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court reported in - 'Emperor v. Rama Lala', 19 Ind Cas 177 (Bom) (A). However, the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Mustafa Khan Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-1952
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1008
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, recommending that the conviction of the accused Shri Mustafa Khan, sub-court Inspector, under Section 228, I. P. C., be set aside.2. It appears from the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baran, that while a witness for the prosecution, namely Shri Narainial, Sub-Inspector, Police, was being examined in a criminal case, which the accused Shri Mustafa Khan was conducting on behalf of the prosecution, the accused complained to the court that the clerk of the court had without actually summoning the witnesses falsely entered the note of compliance. The Magistrate thereupon called for the register and found that the order had been properly complied with although rather late, upon this the accused retorted again and again in heat and anger that his complaint was true and did not stop even when asked by the court to do so. The accused even Interrupted the proceedings which were going on before the Magistra...
Tag this Judgment!Nandkishore Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ159
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. Naudkishore (accused-applicant) stands convicted under Sections 420/109 & 471/468, Penal Code, and. sentenced in the aggregate to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a line of Rs. 1000.3. The facts of the case are that one Rajkumar is said to have cheated the complainant Shankerlal and his father Ghisalal of Nasirabad find extracted from them a sum of about Rs. 6000 by falsely representing to them that lie was a big sugar merchant at Bijnor doing business under the name and style of M/s. Surajprakash Rajkumar, that he was also an agent of the Ajudhya Sugar Mills at Raja-ka-Sahaspur, that he had a railway receipt for 200 bags of sugar consigned to self from Raja-ka-Sahaspur, to Ajmer and that ho was prepared to transfer the goods to them for sale on commission basis. They agreed to this, and paid the amount in question to Rajkumar by means of a bank-draft. It was alleged by the prosecution that Nandkishoro was with Rajkumar a...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1952
Reported in: 1954CriLJ357
ORDERWanchoo, C.J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Jodhpur, and has arisen in the following circumstances.2. A case under Section 353, I. P.C., was pending against Mohanlal in the Court of the Tahsildar Magistrate, Bilara. As the Tahsildar Magistrate had only powers of a third class Magistrate, the case was ordered to be transferred to the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate at Jodhpur. When the case came to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, the accused applied under proviso (a) to Section 350, Sub-section (1), Criminal P. C., that the witnesses, who had been examined by the Tahsildar Magistrate, should be resummoned and re-heard. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, however, without assigning any reasons, dismissed the application saying that he did not consider it desirable to start the trial de novo. Thereupon, there was a revision by Mohanlal before the District Magistrate, and he has recommended that the witnesses should be re-summoned and re-heard, as the Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Vs. Nathmal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Raj180
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by the State of Rajasthan for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Articles 132 and 133 of the Constitution of India.2. The application has been opposed on behalf of the opposite party on two technical grounds, namely,1. that it is barred by limitation, and 2. that it has not been properly presented. Learned counsel for the opposite party agrees that but for these two technical matters, the case is a fit one for granting leave under Articles 132(1) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution. 3. The case arose on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Nathmal andMithalal. That application was allowed on the 19th October, 1951. The present application was filed on the 30th of January, 1952. It is contended on behalf of the opposite party that the application is barred by limitation for two reasons 1. that the applicant is not entitled to any deduction of time taken in obtaining a copy of the judgment to be appealed from under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Gordhan Singh Vs. Custodian, Evacuee Property
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Raj77
Sharma J.1. This is an application by Gordhansingh, resident of Nagla Jiwna, Thasil Kumher, in the District of Bharatpur, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Rajasthan, Jodhpur, the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bharatpur District, and the State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary, for restoring a certain house in the town of Bharatpur to the petitioner and payment of rent to him or in the alternative to pay the full mortgage money with interest to the petitioner in accordance with the mortgage deeds.2. The house belonged to Abdul Latif, Abdul Hafiz, and Abdul Majid and they executed a usufructuary mortgage deed for Rs. 1600/- in respect of the said house in favour of the petitioner on 26-4-1947. This deed was registered on 30-4-1947. The mortgagors themselves took a lease of the house after the mortgage from the petitioner on a monthly rental of Rs. 12/-. Subsequent to ...
Tag this Judgment!Daudas Vs. Punamchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Raj47
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is a review application by Daudas against the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court which was delivered on 31-7-1950 and has arisen in the following circumstances.2. A suit was brought by Punamchand against Motilal, his mother Mst. Dhapo, Sunder Lal, Daudas, Gulabdas and Hemraj defendants for possession of a certain house. Punamchand claimed to be the owner of the house by virtue of it being ancestral property which had come to him. The suit was resisted by Daudas and his case was that the house had been sold in his decree against Sangidas. He put the decree in execution against Gulab Das, son of Sangidas, and attached the house and it was sold by auction and purchased by Hemraj defendant. Sangidas in his turn had purchased this house by a private sale from Motilal and Mst. Dhapo, his mother. The further case of Daudas was that there had been a separation in the family of Punamchand and Motilal long before the sale to Sangidas and this house had come to the sh...
Tag this Judgment!Madhosingh and anr. Vs. Jaitpalsingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Raj46
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is a second appeal by Madhosingh and Jatendrasingh against the order of the Civil and Additional Sessions Judge, Balotra, and has arisen, in the following circumstances.2. A suit was filed by the appellants for Rs. 3,100/- on 23-7-1946, in the court of the Judicial Superintendent, Malanee. The suit included two distinct claims based on two separate causes of action. There was an objection as to multifarious-ness. Thereupon the court ordered in May 1947 that the plaint should be amended, and allowed 14 days' time to do so.3. In July 1947, the appellants filed two drafts of two plaints--one for Rs. 2,000/- and odd, and the other for Rs. 800/- and odd, separating the claims arising out of the two causes of action. The court again ordered the appellants to choose as to which case they wanted to remain in that court, and which they wanted to withdraw. The appellants applied on the 18-11-1947, that they wanted to keep the suit for Rs. 2000/- and odd in that court, and wa...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaironlal Vs. Rampershad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Raj49
Sharma, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff-appellant for a permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained from passing through the 'chauk' belonging to the plaintiff, and also from interfering with the plaintiff's closing of the door between the said 'chauk' and the house of defendant 1 lying to the east of it. In the alternative, it was prayed that in case permanent injunction as prayed above be not granted, the defendants be restrained by permanent injunction from passing through the 'chauk' for any other purpose except residential purposes.2. The plaintiff purchased his house , from Lakshmi Narain Kalyan Baksh, who, in turn, had purchased it from Har Sahai. Har Sahai had purchased the house from Sheonarain, who was the original owner of the house of the parties. After Sheonarain sold the house now belonging tothe plaintiff to Har Sahai, he sold the house lying to the east of the said house to defendant 1 on 26-5-1916. Har Sahai sold his house to L...
Tag this Judgment!Aksingh and anr. Vs. Durjansingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj153
ORDERWanchoo, C.J.1. This is a revision by Aksirigh, and Ratansingh, and has arisen in the following circumstances.2. A suit was brought by Bhupsingh, father of the present applicants, for himself and as guardian of his two minor sons against Durjan-singh and others. On 12th August 1949, a compromise was arrived at between Bhupsingh for himself and as guardian of the minors and Durjansingh. By this compromise part of the claim was given up and the rest was admitted by Durjansingh. An application was also filed on the same date by Bhupsingh praying that he might be permitted to compromise the suit on behalf of the minors. There is only an endorsement on this application to the effect that it was produced by Bhupsingh and should be put on the record. On the same day, the Court passed a decree in favour of the applicants and their father Bhupsingh in terms of the compromise.3. Then followed an application for review by the applicants. Their case in review Was that the provisions of Order ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »