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.
Mst. Bhonri Vs. Suwalal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj119
Bhandari, J.1. In this appeal against the order of the District Judge, Jaipur City granting probate application filed on behalf of one Suwa Lal, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that ad valorem court-fees should have been paid in the memorandum of appeal by the appellant as provided in Article 1, Schedule 1, Court-fees Act.2. One Prahlad died on 28-10-1946 and before his death he had made a will on 22-10-1946 in favour of Suwalal respondent bequeathing him one house in Jaipur City. Mt. Bhonri the appellant lodged the caveat against the grant of probate and thereafter the proceedings became contentious.3. After framing issues and recording evidence the learned District Judge granted a probate to the respondent. Mst. Bhonri has preferred this appeal challenging the order of the learned District Judge.4. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent that the memorandum of appeal being against a decree, the court-...
Hansraj Vs. SatnaraIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Raj219
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is a revision by Hansraj against the order of the District Judge, Ganganagar, and arises in the following circumstances:2. Hansraj had brought a suit on a mortgage against Satnarain opposite party, and his 'ather. Prahlad Rai. 'In that suit Satnarain's mother acted as his guardian. That suit was decreed against both Prahlad Rai and Satnarain in 1951. About two years later, Satnarain brought the suit, out of which the present proceedings have arisen, through another next friend Kishangopal. It is immaterial for present purposes to mention the case put forward by Satnarain in detail.Suffice it to. say that Satnarain prayed that the decree passed against him in the earlier suit in favour of Hansraj be declared to be null and void, and his share in the house mortgaged be declared to be not liable to sale in that decree. Along with his plaint, Satnarain made an application which has given rise to the present proceedings. The last paragraph (Our translation) of that appl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›