Rajasthan Court December 1953 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shersingh Vs. Ghansiram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Raj233
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Munsif of Jaitaran, and has arisen in the following circumstances.2. A suit was filed by Shri Shersingh, Jagirdar of Balunda, against Ghansiram for a sum of Rs. 600/-. In that suit the defendant wanted to examine the plaintiff as his witness. Thereupon, an application was made by the plaintiff on 17-11-1951, to the effect that he was exempt from attendance in Court by virtue of a notification issued by the former State of Jodhpur, No. 5587, dated 6-2-1934, published in the Jodhpur Gazette of 20-3-1934. Thereupon, there was an objection by the defendant whose case was (i) that that notification had lost all force in view of certain changes in the law, and (ii) that, in any case, in view of Article 14 of the Constitution, the privilege conferred by the notification could no longer be enjoyed as it infringed equality before the law provided by that article.3. The matter was argued before the Munsif, and he has referred two questions to us under t...
Sambhudutt and ors. Vs. SrinaraIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Raj269
Wanchoo. C.J.1. This is an appeal by Shambhudutt and others against the judgment and decree of the District Judge Jodhpur in a suit for partition.2. The suit was brought by Srinarain plaintiff against Laxmi Narayan, Harnarayn and Pyarelal who were brothers of the plaintiff for partition of his one-fourth share in certain properties situate in Jodhpur and mentioned in Schedule 'A' annexed to the plaint, which were claimed to be joint properties of the four brothers.The case of the plaintiff respondent was that though he and his brothers had separated long before and there had been severance of status, yet immovable properties which were coming on in the family from the time of their ancestors were not divided by metes and bounds. The plaintiff, therefore, wanted his one-fourth share to be so divided.3. The suit was resisted by Harnarayan defendant who died during the course of the trial and is now represented by Sambhudutt and others -- appellants. Among other pleas, one of the objectio...
State Vs. Sukhsingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Raj290; 1955CriLJ79
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Balotra, and has arisen in the following circumstances:2. Sukhsingh and Shera accused were in Judicial custody under orders of a Magistrate of Banner, under Section 344, Criminal P. C. An application was made to the District Magistrate of Barmer on 30-10-1952, but the Sub-Inspector of Police Station Tharad, District Banas Kantha, Bombay State, praying that these two accused-be remanded to police custody for a period of 15 days presumably under Section 167, Criminal P. C. The District Magistrate originally allowed this prayer, but later, on the objection of these two accused, set aside his order relying on -- 'Dhaman Hiranand v. Emperor', AIR 1937 Sind 251 (A). He took the view based on certain observations in that case that the accused could not be in magisterial and police custody at the same time, and therefore as Sukhsingh and Shera were already in magisterial custody, they could not be handed over to the police for purpos...
Tilokchand Gopaldas Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1022
ORDERNigam, J.C.1. Shri Tilokchand Gopaldas, Editor and Publisher of the Sindhi Language paper 'Hindu', Ajmer was called upon under Sections 4 and 7 of Act 56 of 1951 to furnish a security in the sum of Rs. 500/-. Against that order, he appealed to this Court. That order was confirmed, but the amount of the security was reduced from, Rs. 500/- to Rs. 200/- only. Against that order, dated October 14, 1953, this application for leave to appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been filed. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that two substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution are involved in this appeal. The first question is whether Section 3(v) of Act 56 of 1951 is ultra vires the Constitution. The learned Public Prosecutor has urged that after the first amendment of the Constitution the phrase 'public order' occurs in Article 19(2). The argument is that the...
Mt. Choki Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1953
Reported in: AIR1957Raj10; 1957CriLJ102
ORDERRanawat, J. 1. This is an application for grant of bail on behalf of Mt. Chokhi against whom a case under Section 302 read with Section 34. Penal Code is going on in the Court of Sessions Judge at Jhunjhunu. 2. Mt. Chokhi and her husband Chunna have been prosecuted for the murder of their child aged about seven years named Manbhari and the trial has already begun in the Court of the Sessions Judge. Five prosecution witnesses have been examined who are said to be eye witnesses. It is stated that both Mt. Chokhi and her husband conspired to murder their child in order to implicate Gangaram and others who are said to be on inimical terms with them. An application for grant of bail was made on behalf of Mt. Chokhi in the Court of Sessions Judge who dismissed it on two grounds: 1. that there were no extenuating circumstances in the case. 2. that under the Constitution of India no leniency could be shown to a woman on account of her sex, 3. This application has now been filed under Sec...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›