Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj232
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Shankerlal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, in a pre-emption suit.2. The suit was brought by Poonam Chand for pre-emption with respect to the sale of a house in favour of Shankerlal. The right was based on vicinage as provided in the third clause of Section 3 of the Law of Pre-emption in Marwar. The trial Court decreed the suit, and therefore the defendant has come in appeal to this Court.3. The relevant portion of Section 3 is as follows: 'The right of pre-emption in respect of a house or a building plot shall belong to the under mentioned in the following order:1st ....................................2nd ....................................3rd to a person owning immovable property touching the house or building plot in respect of which pre-emption is claimed...............'A question was raised that the law of pre-emption has been invalidated in view of the provisions of Articles 13 and 19 of the Constitution. The matte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj65
Dave J. 1. These are two connected applications for issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the applicants pray that the Rajasthan Produce Rents Regulating Act (No. 15) of 1951 (hereinafter called the main Act) as amended by the Rajasthan Produce Rents Regulating (Amendment) Act, (No. 14) of 1952 (hereinafter called the Amendment Act) be declared unconstitutional, and therefore void and unenforceable. These applications along with similar other applications came up for hearing on the 31st March, 1953, and subsequent days and were heard together. This judgment will, therefore, govern all other cases which were listed along with these two cases for hearing on the same dates, as the points involved in all these cases are exactly the same. 2. The applicant in case No. 351 is Raj Sahiban Shersingh, jagirdar of Nibaj in the district of Sirohi, while Sawai Singh, a Bhomia in villages Kakrana and Udaipur in district Jhunjhunu, is the applicant in case No. 544. Their...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj273
Wanchoo, C. J.1. This is an appeal by shah sankal Chand against the judgment of the Civil Judge of Sirohi in an execution matter.2. Shah Sankal Chand had brought a suit against the respondent Shah Punamchana and obtained an ex parte decree on 20-2-1948. This decree was put in execution on 31-5-1951. The judgment-debtor respondent was given notice under Order 21, Rule 22, and on appearance took the plea that the application for execution was barred by limitation. This plea was accepted by the executing Court and the application for execution was dismissed. Hence this appeal.3. The case of the decree-holder appellant was that limitation was saved under Article 182 in view of the provisions in Clause 2 of column 3 of that article. It appears that, after the ex parte decree had been passed, there was an application by the defendant for setting aside the ex parte decree. This application was dismissed. Thereupon, there was an appeal from the order dismissing the application for setting asid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj260
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Surajmal Baj for issue of a writ of mandamus, prohibition or any other appropriate writ, or direction or order against the State of Rajasthun and the Administrator of the Municipality of Jaipur City, and two others, in connection with the demand of octroi from the applicant.2. The case of the applicant is that he is a resident of Jaipur City and carries on trade and commerce in allopathic medicines. He was entering the city of Jaipur on 4-9-1953, at about 1 P.M. with a packet of allopathic medicines sent to him by May and Baker (India) Ltd., New Delhi, for the purpose of his trade and commerce. He was stopped by the Octroi Inspector who was also made a party to this petition and was asked to pay octroi duty amounting to Rs. 1/6/6 and was informed that the goods bo detained till the octroi duty was paid.It was urged that this demand and detention of his goods were illegal for the reasons that the octroi impo...
Tag this Judgment!