Rajasthan Court October 1955 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.
Sensmal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Raj211
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. Sensmal and his father and brother separated in October 1952, and a deed of partition was executed between them on the 11th of October 1952, on a stamp worth Rs. 229. This document was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Jalor, on the same day. The Sub-Registrar came to the conclusion that there was a deficiency in stamp amounting to Rs. 531. He seems to have made a demand for the deficit stamp as well as for a penalty ten times the amount. It was then pointed out to him on behalf of the applicant that he had no such . authority and that all he could do was to impound the document under Section 33(2) of the Stamp Act. Thereupon, the Sub-Registrar impounded the document and submitted it to the Collector under Section 38(2) of the Act. The Collector, after hearing parties, ordered recovery of Rs. 531 as deficit stamp duty and, according to the applicant, this was done under Section 40(1) of the Stamp Act. It is said that the applicant deposited the defic...
Sheonathsingh Vs. Dhokalsingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Raj217
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. In this case Sheonath Singh made an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and leave was granted by this Court. Thereafter, the appeal was declared admitted on the 2nd of November. 1954. Steps were taken to print the record, and the record was ready for transmission to the Supreme Court when one of the respondents Jhut Singh died on the 28th of February, 1955. Thereafter, an application was made to this Court on the 9th of May, 1955, under Order XVI, Rule 12 of the Supreme Court Rules for a certificate that Jhut Singh was dead, and that his sons Satidan-singh and Sardarsingh were his legal representatives and were proper persons to be substituted or entered on the record in place of Jhutsingh. It was however, reported by the office that such an application should have been made within 60 days of the death of Jhutsingh under Rule 14 of Order XVI of the Supreme Court Rules and the application was beyond time. Thereupon, notice was issued on the 11th of Oct...
Parsanmal Vs. Jeth Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Raj253
Wanchoo C. J.(1) This is an appeal by Parsanmal against the order of the Civil and Additional Sessions Judge, Merta, and arises in the following circumstances :In March, 1939, Hansraj obtained a decree for Rs. 10,558/9/6 against Jethsingh. The decree was executed by Hansraj a number of times during his life-time. But after Hansraj's death, two persons filed separate execution applications for execution of the decree. These were Parsanmal, present appellant, and Dalpatraj, respondent No. 2. Dalpatraj claimed to be the representative-in-interest of Hansraj decree-holder on the ground that he was the adopted son of Hansraj.It is not in dispute that Dalpatraj is the adopted son of Hansraj, and ordinarily therefore Dalpatraj would be entitled to take out execution on the death of his adoptive father Hansraj who was the decree-holder. Parsanmal, however, contended that Hansraj was only Benamidar for the widow of Kishanraj, and that the real decree-holder was this widow. Further, Parsanmal's ...
Laxmichand and ors. Vs. Mst. Tipuri and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj81
Wanchoo, C.J.1. These five appeals have been referred to this Bench for decision because of an apparent conflict between two decisions of this Court. The first of these decisions was given by a Bench of three Judges sitting at Jaipur on 31-3-1953 (See Radhey Shiam v. Firm Sawai Modi Basdeo Prasad AIR 1953 Raj 204 (PB) (A) ).The exact question, which was before that Bench for decision, was whether the ex parte decree passed in the former State of Jaipur against a resident of the former State of Dholpur in 1947 could be executed at Dholpur after 26-1-1950,The Bench took the view that even though, at the time the decree was passed, it was the decree of a foreign Court against a non-resident foreigner who had not submitted to its jurisdiction, the political changes, that had taken place in India after 1947, would make the decree executable after 26-1-1950, In what was the former State of Dholpur.The Pull Bench followed the view taken in Bhagwan Shankar v. Rajaram', AIR 1951 Bom 125 (FB) (B...
Kr. Amarsingh of Sabalpore Vs. Madanmohan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj58
Modi, J. 1. This is a complaint by Kr. Amarsingh of Sa-balpore, Tehsil Parbatsar, of professional misconduct against Shri Madan Mohan, an advocate practising at Parbatsar,. District Nagaur. 2. The material facts are these. One Lalia Jat of village Laroli, Tehsil Parbatsar, had made a report, some time in April 1951, at the police station Parbatsar against the petitioner Kr. Amarsingh that he accompanied by some other persons had managed to steal several cart-loads of grass belonging to the complainant. Shortly after, the petitioner's Kamdar Nath-mal happened to go to Parbatsar and meet Shri Madan Mohan. During the course of conversation between Nathmal and Shri Madanmohan, the latter is alleged to have told Nathmal that he had very good relations with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Parbatsar, who was his caste-fellow and hoped to hush up the complaint against Kr. Amarsingh provided a handsome bribe be paid to the Sub-Inspector through Shri Madan Mohan, otherwise the Thikana people would ...
Deepal and ors. Vs. Parshwanath Digamber JaIn Vidyalaya Maha Mantri Sh ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj166
Dave, J.1. This is a first appeal by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Udaipur district, dated 25-9-1951.2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents' learned advocate to the effect that the appeal is barred by 'res judicata' and, therefore, it is prayed that it should be dismissed on that ground alone.3. In order to appreciate the respondents' contention, it seems necessary to state the relevant facts briefly. In the city of Udaipur in Mohalla Dhanmandi, there is a Jain temple of Sumatinath belonging to the Agarwal Jain community which is represented in the present case by the appellants. On the back side of this temple, there is a school which is called Shri Parshwanath Digambar Jain Vidyalaya.In between the building of the said temple and the school i.e. on the back and the two sides of the temple other than the front side, there is vacant land and that is the subject of dispute between the parties. On 16-1-1946, Shri Parshwanath Dig...
Arjunsingh Vs. Teekchand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Raj226
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Arjun Singh for the issue of a writ of Quo Warranto and Mandamus or any other suitable writ or order against the respondents, asking them not to collect any tax from the applicant.2. The main, respondent in the case is the Municipal Board of Karanpur (hereinafter called the Board) through its Secretary, and the State has also been made a party along with the Chairman and members of the Board. The main relief claimed by the applicant is that the Board should be asked not to collect any tax from the petitioner. The grounds on which this relief is claimed may be narrated seriatim:(1) The term of office of the chairman and the members of the Board expired on the 27-9-1954, if not earlier, and as such, the chairman and the members cannot legally function, and were not authorised to collect taxes, or to appoint persons for that purpose, and the persons so appointed were not authorised to demand and coll...
Devichand Vs. Rikhab Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Raj255
Wanchoo, C. J.1. This is a revision by Devichand against theorder of the Civil Judge, Pali, and arises in the following circumstances :The applicant is defendant in a suit pending in the court of Civil Judge, Pali, since 1954. The suit relates to Tahsil Bali. On the 1st March 1955, jurisdiction over Tahsil Ball in cases triable by a Civil Judge was transferred from the court of the Civil Judge, Paii, to the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Sirohi. Consequently, the applicant made an application to the Civil judge, Pali, that he no longerhad jurisdiction to decide the suit, and that only the Senior Civil Judge Sirohi had such jurisdiction. This contention was based on the Civil Judge, Pali, losing jurisdictidn even over pending cases when the work relating to Bali Tahsil was transferred by a notification issued by the Government tothe court of Senior Civil Judge, Sirohi. The application was dismissed by the Civil Judge, and he has relied on the order of this Court dated the 23rd of Apri...
State Vs. Jagannath
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj63; 1956CriLJ418
Bapna, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the accused who was prosecuted under Section 19, Indian Arms Act for contravening the prohibition laid down by Section 13 of the Act. 2. The facts of the case are simple and are not disputed. The accused was seen carrying a muzzle loading gun in the bazaar of Bari town by Sub-Inspector Abdul Rashid on 2-5-1952. The Sub-Inspector asked him if he had a license and on his replying in the negative he took possession of the gun. On the butt of the gun there was a brass plate on which the following words were engraved: 'Gwalior Police 802'. The accused was challenged in the Court of the Extra Magistrate, Dholpur on the allegation that he was going armed without a license and had contravened the provisions of Section 13, Indian Arms Act and was, therefore, liable to punishment under Section 19(e) of the same Act. 3. The accused admitted the possession, of the gun but led defence to prove that he was a Chowkidar of village Ja...
Bhairulal and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ237
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is an application for revision by the two accused Bhairulal and Samandarsingh who were convicted by the learned 1st Class Magistrate, Bhawanimandi under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced to six months' rigorous Imprisonment each and their conviction and sentence have been upheld by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhalawar on appeal.2. The case for the prosecution was that Fayyzuddin Head Constable Police Chowki Pach-Pahar with two constables went to the jungle on the border of Madhya Bharat in the night between the 9th and 10th October, 1953 to check and hold up some stolen oxen which were to pass by that way. At about mid-night both the accused were seen passing that way, Samandarsingh accused had a cycle with him and Bhairulal had a bag.Both the accused were stopped by the police and on search it was found that the bag which was with Bhairulal contained contraband opium. A seizure memo was prepared and it was attested by two witnesses Fatehsingh P. W. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »