Rajasthan Court September 1952 Judgments
Pukhraj Surana Vs. Jawerchand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1957Raj47
Wanchoo C. J. 1. This is an appeal by Pukhraj Surana defendant against the judgment and 'decree of the District Judge, Jodhpur, decreeing the suit brought by the plaintiffs respondents against the defendant appellant.2. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were carrying on business under the name and style of Chandulal Kushalchand at Bombay. The plaintiffs used to work as commission agent for the defendant who was the manager of his joint family, and was carrying on the business of the joint family. As a result of these dealings between the plaintiffs and the defendant, a certain sum of money was due to the plaintiffs.The defendant, in order to pay off in part the amount due from him to the plaintiffs, executed two Mudatti Hundis on Mangsar Sudi 8th St. 2003 for atotal sum of Rs. 35,000/-. One of these Hundis was for Rs. 20,000/- payable 61 days after date, while the other was for Rs. 15,000/- payable 121 days after date. The plaintiffs endorsed the Hundis in favour of Raghunathmal...
Tag this Judgment!Chiranji Lal and ors. Vs. Ramnath and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj211
Sharma, J. 1. This is the plaintiffs' appeal, and has arisen out of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 510/- against the defendant-respondent.2. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's lather, Gomla, had money dealings with the plaintiffs' firm, and that on Magh Sudi 11, Samwat 2000, corresponding to 4-2-ly44, according to the account, a balance of Rs. 376/2/-was found against Gomla, the father of Gidna defendant, and that a balance was struck in the khata and thumb marked by Gomla. Interest was stipulated at the rate of Rs. 1/9/- per cent per mensem. After the striking out of this balance, Gomla died, and Gidha, son of Gomla, has been sued for the recovery of the amountof Rs. 376/2/- principal and Rs. 133/14/- interest, total Rs. 510/-. 3. It was pleaded by Gidha defendant, 'inter alia' that the document in suit was a promissory note, and was insufficiently stamped, inasmuch as it was chargeable with a stamp duty of 2 annas, whereas a stamp onlyof the value of 1 anna had been affixed....
Tag this Judgment!Maharaj Amarsinghji Vs. Utsav Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj57
ORDERK.L. Bapna, J.1. This is a revision by the defendantagainst an order of the Munsiff dated 14th ofNovember 1951. 2. The opposite party filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 500/- against the petitioner Maharaj Amar Singhji. Certain issues were framed and the defendant led his evidence first. The defendant made an application for issue of commission on the ground of illness but it was not accompanied by medical certificate. The commission was refused whereafter the defendant closed his evidence. The plaintiff while leading his evidence cited the defendant as his witness. The defendant again requested the court for issue of commission on the ground of illness, which request was accepted but the plaintiff did not examine the witness on the date fixed as he (the plaintiff) In the meanwhile had made an application for transfer of the case.Later on, the order as to issue of commission was set aside on the representation by the plaintiff that the defendant was no longer ill. On behalf of the d...
Tag this Judgment!Jamna Vs. Mangya
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj86
Sharma, J. 1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Jamna Kumhar of Damodarpura against whom the opposite party Mangya filed an application under Section 7, Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, for reinstatement. His allegation was that he was in occupation of a certain agricultural property on 1-4-1948, but was dispossessed from it on 6-7-1950. The applicant resisted the application, but the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Sawai Jaipur, made an order of reinstatement of the opposite party. A revision was filed against this order under Section 10(1) of the said Ordinance, but it was dismissed. The petitioner has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and has prayed that in the exercise of the powers of superintendence conferred by Article 227, the order of the Board of Revenue be vacated and the application of the opposite party for reinstatement be rejected. 2. We have heard Mr. Ram Avtar Gupta on behalf ...
Tag this Judgment!Chauthmal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj73
Bapna, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. A Municipal Board at Nawa, District Nagaur, existed when the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951 (Act No. XXIII of 1951) came into force on 22nd December 1951, By notification No. F. 1 (c) (5)/L.S.G/51-1 dated 5th March 1952 published in Rajasthan Rajpatra of 29th March 1952, the Government dissolved the Municipal Board, Nawa, and appointed an ad hoc Committee consisting of five persons who are respondents Nos. 2 to 6 in this case. The petitioner was a member of the Municipal Board before its dissolution and he has challenged the validity of the Government order dissolving the Municipal Board of Nawa as also the appointment of the Ad hoc Committee. 3. It was alleged that in the last municipal elections, the congress group of members was defeated and the group of independent members had been elected. The Congress group of members having been frustrated, started making complaints against the Municipal ...
Tag this Judgment!Kedarnath Vs. Umedilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj77
Ranawat, J. 1. This is an application of one Kedar Nath under Article 227, Constitution of India. It is alleged that Umedilal filed an application under the Matsya Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1943 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Matsya Ordinance) in the court of the Rent Controller for ejectment of the petitioner from a shop which he was occupying as a tenant. The grounds taken by Umedilal in his application were that the premises were required for the bona fide use of the landlord and that the tenant had not paid the rents for three months. On both the grounds Kedar Nath contested the petition. 2. The Rent Controller after holding an inquiry allowed the petition of Umedilal on the 16th of October 1951 and ordered Kedarnath tovacate the disputed shop within one month failing which it was laid down that he would be liable to be ejected in accordance with the provisions of the law. Kedarnath filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller in the Courtof the District J...
Tag this Judgment!Lachman Singh Vs. Ghisa Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj84
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Lachhman Singh for a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution, and has arisen in the following circumstances : 2. Ghisa Bai, Gajra Bai, and Phunda Bai, opposite parties, made an application under Section 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance 9 of 1949, for reinstatement over certain lands of which Lachhman Singh had taken possession. Their case was that they were tenants of the land for a long time but had been ejected without process of law by Lachhman Singh applicant. Thereafter, they were put back in possession in June, 1947. They were, however, again ejected by Lachhman Singh, and thereafter regained possession on the 27th April, 1948. They were again ejected soon after by Lachhman Singh without any authority of law. They therefore claimed reinstatement as mentioned above. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer came to the conclusion that the applicants had been ejected in June or July, 1947, and got back possession o...
Tag this Judgment!Kasimkhan Vs. Chandratan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Raj25
Bapna, J.1. This is a second appeal in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent.2. The respondent Chandratan sued the appellant Kasirokhan for ejectment and arrears of rent in respect of a house and a 'bara' situated at Bikaner on the basis of two rent-notes Exs. P-1 and P-2 dated 21-9-1947 alleged to have been executed by the defendant. The defendant denied execution of these rent-notes or having been put in possession of the property by the plaintiff. He alleged that one Isak was the owner of the property and was in possession of the same. According to the plaintiff, Isak had mortgaged the house and the bara for Rs. 10,000/- by a registered deed of mortgage dated 18-9-1947. The trial Court after evidence held that the execution of the rent-notes had not been proved and the suit was dismissed. On appeal, the learned District Judge reversed that finding and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant has filed this second appeal.3. Learned counsel for the appellant argue...
Tag this Judgment!ishar and ors. Vs. Naib-tahsildar of Govindgarh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Raj81
Sharma, J.1. These are three similar petitions by certain tenants of certain agricultural lands in Alwar District under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. All of them are directed against 'inter alia' the State of Rajasthan. To the petition No. 97 of 1951 Naib Tehsildar and Re-settlement Tehsildar of Govindgarh Sub-Tahsil in District Alwar and Bachan Singh and Hari Singh of Sub-Tahsil Govindgarh hereinafter to be referred to as 'new lessees' have also been made parties. To the petitions Nos. 100 and 115 of 1951, besides the State of Rajasthan, the S. D. O. Resettlement, Alwar District and Naib Tehsildar, Resettlement of Tehsil Mandawar, have also been made parties.2. The case of all the petitioners in their petitions is that they had been tenants of lands given in their petitions for many years and were recorded as such in Revenue Records. Their land-holders migrated to Pakistan after the partition of India, They held these lands as tenants upto May 1951, when the Tehsildar. Res...
Tag this Judgment!Pandit Kanhiyalal Vs. Mangal Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj69
Ranawat, J. 1. A revision application was filed by Kanhiyalal in Ijlas Khas, Dholpur State, against the decision of the then Dholpur High Court, dated the 14th December 1942 in its revisional jurisdiction. The High Court refused to interfere in the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Dholpur, by which an injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff for removal of a latrine. After the merger of the Dholpur State into Matsya Union and after the integration of the Matsya Union in the Rajasthan State this revision application came on the file of this court by virtue of the Raj asthan Appeals and Petitions (Discontinuance) Ordinance, No. XL of 1949, as amended by Ordinance XII of 1950). The petitioner has now filed an application on the 19th of November 1951 stating that Mangalsingh who wasthe plaintiff in the suit had died on the 4th of December 1950. He has prayed that the sons of Mangal Singh may be brought on the record of this case. A rule was issued to the opposite party to s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›