Rajasthan Court August 1954 Judgments
Ramdayal Vs. Maji Devdiji
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1954
Reported in: AIR1956Raj12
Modi, J. 1. This is a first appeal by defendant Ramdayal in a suit for recovery of money.2. The plaintiff's case was that there were money dealings between him and the defendant, and the latter went into accounts and struck a balance of Rs. 3000/- in plaintiff's favour oh Posh Sudi 9, Smt. 2005 in his Khata Bahi and signed the entry. Thereafter, on Posh Sudi 13, Smt. 2005, the defendant took a further loan of Rs. 7000/- from the plaintiff in lieu of which also he signed an entry in the plaintiff's Khata bahi.The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant had agreed to give interest at the rate of 9 per cent, per annum. As the defendant had paid nothing towards the debt, the plaintiff instituted his suit/on 13-6-1949, for the recovery of Rs 10,000/- principle and Rs. 392/- by way of interest, total Rs. 10,392/-.3. The defendant admitted having executed the Khatas relied on by the plaintiff but resisted the suit on the ground that he had executed two Mudatti Hundies for the sum of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhonreylal Vs. Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1956Raj49
Ranawat, J.1.This is an application for an ad interim order of stay of execution in an appeal against an order of the District Judge, Alwar, of 26-4-1954, dismissing an application of the appellant for restoration of his appeal which was dismissed for default on 6-7-1953.2. The facts of the case are that Chiranjilal and Ram Singh obtained a decree in-a preemption suit on 7-4-1952, by which on payment of the sale price they were allowed to purchase the property sold by Dulichand to Bhonreylal.3. The defendant Bhonrey Lal filed an appeal against the decree of the first court in the court of the District Judge, Alwar, which was fixed for hearing on 6-7-1953. The appellant failed to appear on that date and the appellate court dismissed the appeal for default of appearance. A restoration application was filed by the appellant but it was dismissed on 26-4-1954.Bhonrey Lal has filed an appeal against the order of the District Judge, Alwar, of 26-4-1954, & has also moved an application for sta...
Tag this Judgment!Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Raj301
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application for stay filed by Thakur Sajjan Singh in connection with his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of this Court dismissing the applicant's writ petition against the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act (No. VI) of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The facts leading to this application may be briefly narrated. The applicant filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the validity of the Act. That writ petition was dismissed by this Court on the 23rd of August, 1954. Thereupon, the applicant has made an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which is pending in this Court, and notice of it has been issued to the State. The applicant prays (1) that pending the disposal of the application for leave to appeal this Court may be pleased to grant a stay order restraining the State from interfering in any manner with the possession of the applicant over his jagir, or from taking...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Manphool and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1954
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1677
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by the State of Rajasthan under Article 134(l)(c) of the Constitution for a certificate that the case, with respect to which this application has been made, is fit for appeal to the Supreme Court.2. The facts are that seven persons were prosecuted for the murder of three others, namely Pat-ram and his wife and Patram's son Brijlal. The motive for the murders was said to be pre-existing enmity between the two sides, and the murders were alleged to be the result of a conspiracy between the seven accused. Two of the deceased Pat-ram and his wife were killed at their house, while the third Brijlal was killed at the field. Thereupon there were two cases in the trial Court with respect to these incidents, which resulted in two appeals to this Court. Both the appeals were allowed, and the accused persons were acquitted.This application is against four out of seven accused who were acquitted. One of these four Manphool was convicted by the Sessions Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Juhar Mal and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Raj279; 1955CriLJ66
Wanchoo, C.J.1. The following question has been referred to by a learned Single Judge of this Court to a larger Bench for decision-- .'Whether the High Court or the subordinate courts have power under the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant bail to a person seeking bail even though he may not have been arrested or detained in custody and no warrant of arrest has been issued against him, but prays that a case has been registered against him by the police and he will be arrested and thereby-disgraced if bail is not granted to him?'2. The circumstances, under which this reference has been made, may be briefly narrated. The applicants Juhar Mal and Pannalal, who are residents of Ahor, district Jalore, made an application to the Sessions Judge Balotra for grant of bail under Section 498, Criminal P. C. They said that the police was trying to arrest them in order to insult and harass them, and they prayed for what is colloquially called anticipatory bail.This application was rejected, and th...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Singh Madho Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Raj291
Wanchoo, C.J.1. These are 210 applications under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, (No. 6) of 1952 as amended by The Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs (Amendment) Act (No. 13) of 1954 (hereinafter to be referred together as the Act). We propose to deal with them by one judgment as the points raised in these cases are common.2. The cases may be divided into two broad groups. The first group consists of what may be called ordinary jagirdari cases. The rights of the applicants in these cases arise from grants by the Rulers of the covenanting States. The second group of cases are Bhomichara and Bhomat cases, and it is said that the rights of the applicants in these cases did not arise out of any grant by the Rulers.3. We do not think it necessary to set out the allegations in the various applications in detail. It would, in our opinion, be enough to indicate the points on the basis of which th...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Manphool and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Raj271
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by the State of Rajasthan under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution for a certificate that the case, with respect to which this application has been made, is fit for appeal to the Supreme Court.2. The facts are that seven persons were prosecuted for the murder of three others, namely Pat-ram and his wife and Patram's son Brijlal. The motive for the murders was said to be pre-existing enmity between the two sides, and the murders were alleged to be the result of a conspiracy between the seven accused. Two of the deceased Pat-ram and his wife were killed at their house, while the third Brijlal was killed at the field. Thereupon there were two eases in the trial Court with respect to these incidents, which resulted in two appeals to this Court. Both the appeals were allowed, and the accused persons were acquitted.This application is against four out of seven accused who were acquitted. One of these four Manphool was convicted by the Sessions Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Mandansing and anr. Vs. Raghunathsingh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1954
Reported in: 1957CriLJ293
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi, recommending that the order of the Sab-Divisional Magistrate, Bundi, dated 28-1-1954, making his conditional order under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, absolute against the applicants Madansingh and Shrimati Kanwarbai be set aside.2. Parties have not appeared. I have gone through the judgments of both the lower Courts as well as the record or the case. The learned Additional Sessions is perfectly justified in saying that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, was wrong in proceeding under Section 137 of the Criminal Procedure Code before complying with the Provisions of Section 139(A). Under Section 139(A), where an order is made under Section 133 for the purposes of preventing obtruction, nuisance or danger to the public in the use of any way the Magistrate, shall on the appearance before him of the person against whom, the order was made question him as to whether he denies the existen...
Tag this Judgment!Banarsi Bai Vs. Ghisoolal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1954
Reported in: 1955CriLJ167
ORDERNigam J.C.(1) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, recommending that the learned Honorary Magistrate's order dismissing the application presented by Sm. Banarasi Bai Under Section 488, Criminal P. C, for maintenance be set aside and maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12/-per month be awarded. Shri K. G. Shrivastava appears in support of the reference and the Public Prosecutor also supports it. I have heard the opposite party Shri Ghisoolal who appears in person.(2) There is no denying the fact that the applicant is the wife of the opposite party Ghisoolal. The applicant is not living with her husband who, has married a second time. This is sufficient ground for refusing to live with her husband. In the circumstances, the applicant is clearly entitled to maintenance.The sum of Rs. 12/- per month cannot be considered to be excessive. I doubt if it will prove sufficient, but perhaps the opposite party cannot afford to pay a larger sum. I, therefore, accept the refere...
Tag this Judgment!Kishna and anr. Vs. Gheesa and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1954
Reported in: AIR1956Raj112
Bapna, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Munsif, Jhalrapatan, under Section 40, Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951.2. Kishna and another filed a suit for redemption of certain agricultural land in the Court of Munsif, jhalrapatan, on 23-5-1950. The defendants denied the mortgagor's title to the land as also the fact of the mortgage. On the enforcement of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, the learned Munsif transferred the suit to the Court of Assistant Collector by order dated 5-3-1951, The Assistant Collector dismissed the suit after trial on 6-11-1952, but on appeal the case was remanded for a fresh trial by the Collector.At this stage the learned Assistant Collector was of opinion that certain issues relevant in the suit related to an enquiry about the proprietary title to land, and he, therefore, made an order remitting Issues Nos. 1, 4 and 5 for trial by the civil court under Section 36, Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Proc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »