Rajasthan Court January 1956 Judgments
BadrinaraIn and ors. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj64; 1957CriLJ391
Sharma, J. 1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City dated 10th October, 1955 recommending that the convictions of the 14 accused (hereinafter to be referred to as the applicants) be set aside.2. The case against the applicants was that on the 17th of January, 1955 at about 8-30 P. M., a crowd including the applicants collected in the Johri Bazar on the road near the turning of Rasta Ghiwalan and Satta by American Features was being done there. It was complained that the applicants along with other persons of the crowd blocked the traffic and caused obstruction and annoyance to the public passing by the road.3. The applicants were challenged under Sections 283 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act. The learned Trial Magistrate acquitted all the accused of offences Under Section 290 I. P. C. and Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act but convicted them Under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to a fine o...
Tag this Judgment!Sawa and anr. Vs. Naki Mohammad and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj362
ORDERModi, J. 1. This is a reference by the Civil Judge, Banswara, under Section 40 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 (Act No. 1 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Rajasthan Act) and has arisen under the following circumstances. 2. The plaintiffs Sawa and Heera are brothers, sons of Deva. Their case, as disclosed in the plaint filed in the Court of S. D. O., Banswara is that they as well as their brother Nathu who has been impleaded as defendant No. 2 are bapidars of fields Nos. 63 and 65 of village Ban and have been recorded as such in the settlement record. They further alleged that seven years ago, they executed an unregistered mortgage deed in favour of defendant Naki Mohammed for a sum of Rs. 230/- and that the said defendant got into possession of the fields. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs gave a notice to the contesting defendant to hand over possession in which they also said that they were prepared to pay the mortgage money...
Tag this Judgment!Amarsingh and anr. Vs. Karnail Kaur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Raj169
Modi, J. 1. This is an application by the unsuccessful plaintiffs Amarslngh and Karamsingh for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution against the judgment and decree of a Bench of this Court dated 13-7-1955, reversing the judgment and decree of the District Judge. Ganganagar, by which he had decreed the plaintiffs' suit.2. The dispute between the parties in substance and effect relates to the right to succeed to the estate of the deceased Dayalsingh, nephew (being brother's son) of the petitioners, and the husband of opposite party No. 1 Mst. Karnail Kaur. The plaintiffs' case was that Mst. Karnail Kaur was not at all pregnant at the time of her husband's death on the 20th February, 1947, and, therefore, the alleged after-born son Jagrupsingh opposite party No. 2 was an impostor, not being the child of Dayalsingh.There was a further allegation that Mst. Karnail Kaur had contracted a second marriage with Labhsingh, one of the sons of the...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Prasad Vs. Gokulnath
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Raj137
Bapna, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for damages for breach of contract.2. The respondent had entered into a contract with the defendant for transport of 3000 maunds of coal from Gura to Ajmer on 21-6-1947, the entire operation to be performed within one month. The respondent also advanced Rs. 3250/-to the defendant-appellant in order to carry out that contract.Previous to this, the plaintiff-respondent had, entered into a contract with Amarchand Darshan Singh of Kotah to purchase 3000 maunds of coal, and the latter had agreed to keep coal ready at his godown at Gura village. This contract was entered into with the sellers on 18-5-1947, and there was a clause in the agreement that the goods were to be removed by the 13th of June.There was also a clause that if the purchaser, namely, the plaintiff-respondent in the present case failed to purchase the coal, or the seller failed to give delivery to the purchaser, the defaulting party would pay Rs. 500/- to the opposite...
Tag this Judgment!Chouth Mal Vs. Bhonrilal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Raj192
ORDERBapna, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order of the Additional Munsif, Jaipur City West, dated 1-11-1954, rejecting the objection as to jurisdiction.2. The respondents Bhonrilal and Shankerlal filed a suit in the Court of Munsif, Jairpur City East against the petitioner Chouthmal for recovery of Rs. 550/-. It was transferred to the Court of Additional Munsif, Jaipur City, Mr. Dwarka Das Gupta, by order of the District Judge, dated 15-9-1954.The High Court by an order of the same date, which was received in the Court of the District Judge on 17-9-1954, appointed Mr. D.D. Gupta as Additional Munsif, Jaipur City West, instead of Additional Munsif, Jaipur City. On 11-10-1954, an application was moved that the Court was not competent to try the suit.The learned Additional Munsif by his order of 1-11-1954, held that the case had been transfered by the District Judge under Section 24 Civil P.C., and the competency referred to in Section 24 related to pecuniary jurisdi...
Tag this Judgment!Gainda Raghuvir Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ157
Bapna, J.1. This is an appeal by Gainda, son of Raghuvir Kachi of Nagla-Bhensa, Police Station Rupbas, who has been convicted under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 /-, and in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months by the learned Special (Sessions) Judge, Bharatpur, by judgment dated 15-6-1955. The sum of Rs. 100/-, which was sought to be offered as bribe was directed to be forfeited to the Government.2. The case for the prosecution is that mutation of one bigha and twelve taiswas of land in Khasra No. 1543 in village Bhensa was made in favour of Girraj Nai by Shri Kaluram, Naib Tehsildar, Rupbas, by order dated 31-10-1954. This order was by consent of Gainda, in whose name that land previously stood. Gainda, however, changed his mind, and approached Shri Kalurarn to reverse the entry and on 4-11-1954, offered to pay illegal gratification to Shri Kaluram.Shri Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Bhonria and ors. Vs. Deputy Director Rehabilitation, Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Raj139
Bapna, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226, Constitution of India.2. The petitioners are 15 in number, all Balais, residents of a small village called Nagia Band Sikari, Tehsil Nagar, District Bharatpur. The case put forward on their behalf is that when the Band was constructed, they were called upon to occupy the land nearby and to make houses and to reside there so that the staff who had to be stationed near the Band in the jungle may have the advantage of their bsing close at hand.It was alleged that this occurred 40 years ago, and since then they were cultivate s of 199 bighas and 16 biswas of land as tenants under Meo Biswedars. It was alleged that the Meo landlords did not permit any entry in the revenue records recognising them as cultivators, but the petitioners nevertheless continued to cultivate the land.The Meo landlords abandoned their holdings, and migrated to Pakistan or other parts of Indiain the year 1947. Alter certain enquiry the petitioners were granted pattas ...
Tag this Judgment!Tejasingh Vs. Janwata and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ162
ORDERModi, J.1. This is a revision by Tejasingh against an order of the District Magistrate, Jalore, dated the 26-11-1954, forfeiting his surety bond under Section 514 Cr. P. C., and arises in the following circumstances.2. A report was made by Teekma against one Janwata in connection with the theft of the former's camel at the police station Sanchore During the course of investigation, the investigating officer made over the camel which had been recovered from the possession of Janwata to the petitioner Tejasingh on the latter's executing a bond in favour of the police officer that he would produce the camel before the police or the court whenever called upon to do so and that in default he would pay a sum of Rs. 500/-.This bond was executed on the 18-11-1952. Janwata was challaned in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Jalore, in due course and the case was thereafter transferred to the court of the Extra First Class Magistrate Sanchore. By his judgment dated the 31-1-1954, Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Manak Shaw Vs. Tarachand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj65
Dave, J. 1. This is an application in revision by the defendant against the order of the District Judge, Pratapgarh, dated the 7th of December 1953 permitting the plaintiff unstamped document to be admitted in evidence on payment of penalty.2. In order to appreciate the point in Issue, it would be proper to narrate the facts in brief. The plaintiffs Tarachand and others brought a money suit against the defendant-petitioner on the basis of certain entries in their account-books.It was averred by them that on Kati Sud 1 Samwat 2008 corresponding to 31st of October 1951, the defendant settled with the plaintiffs his account whereby a balance of Rs. 1734/12/- was found outstanding against him. The defendant, therefore, executed a Khata in their account-books for the said amount and promised to pay interest on the said amount at Rs. 1 per cent per mensem. Thereafter, on Magh Vad 6 Samwat 2008 corresponding to 20th of November 1951, the defendant obtained a further loan of Rs. 8001/- at the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chhitar Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ155
Bapna, J.1. This is a revision by Chhitar who was convicted by the Munsif-Magistrate, Malpura, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to two months' regorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default of the payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 months by judgment dated 30-6-1955. The accused filed an appeal, but was permitted to Withdraw by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk, by order, dated 6-10-1955. The accused has filed a revision.2. The case for the prosecution was that when the accused was working as a Patwari for village Ratanpura, he had obtained Rs. 130/10/3 from various cultivators as rent of Sawal Chak, but did not deposit the same with the Government. He did not issue any receipts to the cultivators by an explanation that the receipt book was not with him at the time. The accused pleaded that he did not recover any of the disputed amounts, and the case had been cooked against him by Patel Chaturbhuj with w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›