Rajasthan Court November 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.
Deeplal and ors. Vs. Parshwanath Digambar JaIn Vidyalaya Mahamantri Sh ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj171
Dave, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this appeal have already been stated in our order dated 20th of October, 1955 deciding the preliminary objection of the respondents, and, therefore, they need not be repeated. This judgment may be read in continuation of the said order.2. The trial court had framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings:(1) Whether the ground of the Chowk on the southern, western and northern sides of the temple is in ownership of the plaintiff. (2) Whether the Bhetpatra is illegal, inoperative and inadmissible in evidence. (3) Whether the plaintiff alone is entitled to bring the suit. (4) Whether the actions of the defendants cause inconvenience to the plaintiff. (5) What relief the plaintiff is entitled to. 3. The trial court decided all the issues in the plaintiff's favour and decreed the suit.4. Learned counsel for the appellants has attacked the finding of the trial court on the first three issues. It is urged that the plaintiffs have based their su...
Thakursingh and ors. Vs. Bhaironlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj113
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is an application for revision by the defendants Thakursingh and Bans Singh against the order of the learned Munsif, Dholpur, refusing to grant an application for review of the ex parte judgment dated 8-7-1953.2. The facts are that the opposite party Bhaironlal and Bal Kishan filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 423/- against the applicants. This suit was instituted in the Court of Munsif. Bari. Sri Narain Swaroop appeared as a pleader for the defendant-applicant's in this case. The entire evidence of the plaintiffs and the defendants was recorded before the Munsif, Bari and the plaintiffs' arguments were also over.Arguments were made on behalf of the defendants on 8th, 20th and 21st August, 1952. The case came up for remaining arguments of the defendants on 22-8-1952 but on that date arguments could not be heard and the case was fixed for the remaining arguments of the defendants on 29-8-1952. On the last mentioned date the arguments on behalf of the defendants ...
Jugraj Vs. Rajasthan State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj107
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Jugraj, and arises in the following circumstances: 2. The case relates to village Osia in which a Panchayat had been established under the Marwar Village Panchayat Act of 1945 (hereinafter called the Marwar Act). Prom the 1-1-1954, the Rajasthan Panchayat Act (No. 21) of 1953 (hereinafter called the Act) came into force. A notification was issued under the Act for the establishment of a Panchayat consisting of two villages namely Osia and Dhunaria. Thereafter, elections were held to this Panchayat of the two villages, and certain persons were elected. The applicant contends that under Section 93 (2) of the Act the Panchayats established under the Marwar Act were deemed to have been established under the Act from the date of its commencement, i.e. 1-1-1954. Therefore, it was not open to the State Government by means of a notification, dated 13-11-1954, to establish another Panchayat consisting of Osia and D...
The State Vs. Babulal and Bherumal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj67
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Bherumal and Babulal of an offence Section 302. I. P. C. by the Additional Sessions Judge of Sirohi.2. The case for the prosecution was briefly this. Foujmal deceased was a young man of about 19 years of age, and used to live in village Mandar. Roopchand P. W. was a relation of Foujmal. This Roopchand had a brother Manilal who wag also a young man. Babulal accused is of the same caste as the deceased, and is the son of Amichand who was also an accused in this case, but has been acquitted. .Babulal's mother had a sister Rohni Bai, Her parents are dead, and she used to live with her brother-in-law Amichand, and is still living with him. It is said that she fell in love with Manilal but Manilal's family was not in favour of the marriage of Rohni Bai with Manilal. It is also said that Manilal himself was not keen on marrying Rohni Bai. She was however, so keen in the matter that she offered 'Dharna' for some time at th...
Sher Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj110
Dave, J.1. This is an application by one Shersingh under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the State of Rajasthan and indersingh.2. Non-petitioner No. 1 has not filed any reply, though the learned Deputy Government Advocate has appeared to contest the petition. Non-petitioner No. 2 has filed a reply. The facts which have given rise to the present application are as follows:3. One Lt. Narainsingh was Chaudhari of village 17-Z in Tehsil Ganganagar. After his death in 1947, his son Gurdat Singh, his grandson Jaswantsingh and the petitioner Shersingh were candidates for appointment as Chaudhari in place of Narainsingh. On 21-12-1950, Jaswantsingh, grandson of the deceased, was appointed Chaudhari by the A. C. Ganganagar.The petitioner Shersingh filed an appeal before the Collector Ganganagar. That appeal was allowed on 11-6-1951 (vide Ex. 1) and the petitioner was appointed Chaudhari. It appears from Ex. 2 that Jaswantsingh challenged the petitioner's appoint...
Amsingh Vs. Jethmal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Raj173
Dave, J. 1. This is an application by defendant Amsingh for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India under Article 133 of the Constitution of India read with Section 109 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this application are that the plaintiff, opposite party, filed a money suit on 23rd of January 1952 in the Court of the Disrtict Judge, Balotra against the petitioner's father for the recovery of Rs. 38,845/9/3 on the basis of two Khatas dated 15th of December 1947. The petitioner's father having died during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner was impleaded as his legal representative. The petitioner traversed the entire claim and took a number of pleas, one of them being on the ground of limitation. The trial Court decided only the issue regarding the limitation and dismissed the claim. The plaintiff came in appeal to this Court. That appeal was heard by a Full Bench and it was held that the plaintiffs' claim was within limitation. The decree of ...
Jagat Singh Vs. Chief Commissioner, State of Ajmer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ657
ORDERNigam, J.C.1. Jagat Singh, proprietor of the Khalsa Hotel and Restaurant, Ajmer, has filed this petition for a writ of mandamus or an order or direction in the nature thereof directing the Chief Commissioner, State of Ajmer, not to prosecute or threaten to prosecute through his subordinate officers either the petitioner or any of his customers or visitors for any alleged contravention of notification No. E(1)/3/54-FWE., dated 19-8-1955. In the writ 1966 Cri. L. J. D.F. 42 petition, I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and' the learned Government Pleader,2. The notification in question prohibits 'any person visiting any' premises used as a restaurant within the local limits of the municipalities of Ajmer, Beawar Kekri and Cantonment area of Nasirabad to the State of Ajmer, from keeping or taking any quantity of foreign liquor pr country liquor into the said premises'.It further prohibits any owner of the restaurant or his employee or his agent from keeping or allowing...
Mukundlal and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Raj178; 1957CriLJ665
Bhandari, J.1. The applicants in these three revision petitions have been convicted by the- learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bundi to take their trial under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act, 1946 for contravening the pro-Visions of Clause 17 of the Rajasthan Food Grains Control Order, 1949. Same point of law arises in these three petitions and Sharma J. has referred the case to the Division Bench as in his opinion Clause 17 of the Rajasthan Pood Grains Control Order is capable of different interpretations.2. All these three petitions are being disposed of by this judgment;3. The petitioners have been challaned for possessing more than 50 mds. of food grains and thus having contravened Clause 17 (1) of the Food Grains Control Order, 1949 which is punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act, 1946. In order to appreciate properly the point of law involved in these revision petitions, we set forth below Clauses 17(1) and (2) of the Ord...
Bhoor Chand Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Raj213
Modi, J.1. This is a petition by Bhoorchand under Article 226 of the Constitution and arises under the following circumstances.2. The petitioner's case is that he had obtained the lease of some 2400 bighas of land from the jagirdar of Sanwarla, Tehsil Siwana, by a deed dated the 3rd December, 1951, and that he had been carrying on the work of manufacture of salt over 1 1/2 acre out of the area mentioned above for the last four years and invested round about Rs 10,000/- over such manufacture. He also states to have applied but without success so far, for a licence, to the General Manager, Central Excise and Salt Government of India, for the purpose of manufacturing salt over a larger area but contends that so far as the existing area, to which he has confined the manufacturing operations is concerned, namely, the one and half acre, he is perfectly within his legal rights as such manufacture is covered by a press-note dated the 23rd April, 1948. issued by the Government of India under Se...
Uma Kishana and ors. Vs. State of Ajmer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-03-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ1134
Nigam, J.C.1. Loomb Raj and Uma have been found guilty of offences under Sections 457 and, 380, Penal Code. Under Section 457, Penal Code Loomb Raj has been sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with 6 months' further rigorous imprisonment in default. Under Section 380, Penal Code he has been sentenced to 4 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with 6 months' rigorous imprisonment in default. The substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.Uma has been sentenced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with 6 months further rigorous imprisonment in default under Section 457, Penal Code. Under Section 380, Penal Code he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with six months' further rigorous imprisonment in default.Again the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Dhanna has been found guilty of offences under Sections 457 and 381, Penal C...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »