Rajasthan Court October 1956 Judgments
Prithvi Raj and ors. Vs. Munnalal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj112
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. These are three connected revisions against the orders of civil Judge, Ratangarh, and arise in the following circumstances:2. Three suits were brought by Munnalal & other plaintiffs against three different sets of defen- dants in the court of Civil Judge, Ratangarh. In all the three suits, the defendants raised a question whether the trial Court had territorial jurisdiction to decide the suits and an issue was framed on that point. The defendants in all those cases asked the trial Court to decide the issue of jurisdiction first. The trial Court rejected this contention mainly on the ground that the issue of jurisdiction was also connected with another issue relating to execution of the document which was the basis of the suit.3. The defendants in the three suits have come to this Court in revision, and it is contended on their behalf that the trial Court acted with illegality or material irregularity in not allowing their prayer for deciding the issue of jurisdiction a...
Tag this Judgment!Kesari Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj284
Bapna, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order of the Government removing the petitioner from the office of Chairman of the Town Municipality of Sironj.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was-duly elected as Chairman or the Town Municipality of Sironj, District Kotah, and had been working as such since 26th February, 1955. He was the Secretary of the Praja Socialist Party, and for various reasons mentioned in the petition had incurred the wrath of the Tehsil and District Congress Committees, which began to press the Congress-men in authority to bring about the petitioner's removal in order to boost up the prestige of the Congress in that area, and that as result of this pressure the present Government, which was run by the Congress party, ordered his removal under cover of Section 22 (10) of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951 (Act No. 23 of 1951). It was alleged that he was served by the Secretary, Local Self-Government, with a charg...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Lal and ors. Vs. Chhagan Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj355
Bapna, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs in a declaratory suit.2. Respondent No. 1 Chhagan Lal obtained a money decree on the basis of a mortgage-deed executed by Ladurara against his son and legal representative Gangadhar. When the decree was put in execution and the mortgage property was attached, the appellants Sohan Lal and Gokalchand, minor sons of Gangadhar, Mst. Mooli, widow of Kushalchand, and Mst Ganpati, widow of Ladu Ram, instituted a suit for declaration that the house property attached was joint Hindu family property and not liable to be sold in execution of the decree, which was for the enforcement of a mortgage, as the said mortgage was not binding on the members of the family.The trial Court, after evidence, decreed the suit, but on appeal that judgment was set aside. It was held by the first appellate Court that the mortgage had been effected for an antecedent debt by the manager of the joint Hindu family and further the plea of want of legal necessity was...
Tag this Judgment!Anraj Vs. Bijairaj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj131
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an execution first appeal by the judgment-debtor Anraj against the order of the District Judge, Pali.2. The facts, which have led to this appeal, are these:3. Decree-holder respondents Bijairaj etc., had filed a suit against Anraj and others for recovery of Rs. 19,151/- This suit was decreed on the 26th of July, 1939, by the District Judge of Nagpur. There was no appeal by the defendants in the suit, and that decree has become final. The decree was put in execution by the decree-holdersrespondents in October, 1949. Thereupon, an objection was raised by the judgment-debtors that the decree was not capable of execution as it was a nullity. That objection has been dismissed, and the present appeal is against the dismissal of that objection.4. The grounds, on which the objection was made, were these:5. The judgment-debtors contended that they had been declared insolvent by a court at Bangalore, and had been given an absolute discharge on the 6th of September, 1943. ...
Tag this Judgment!Amroo Ram, Chairman of Municipal Board, Shri Dungargarh Vs. State of R ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj87
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 236 of the Constitution by Shri Amroo Ram who is Chairman of the Municipal Board Shri Dungargarh, for a writ, direction or order in connection with an order passed by the State of Rajasthan on the 6th of September, 1956, with respect to the term of the Municipal Board. 2. The facts, on which this application is based, are these-General election to the Municipal Board took place on the 8th of September, 1953, and the Returning Officer declared the result of the election on that date. But the oath of office was administered to the applicant and other members of the Board on the 12th of December, 1953, by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Ratangarh, and it is from that date that the Board began to function. The applicant's case is that the Board is en-titled to function up to the 11th of December, 1956, for a period of three years under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act (No. XXIII) of 1951, read with Rule 45 of the Rajas...
Tag this Judgment!Rajvi Abhey Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-1956
Reported in: AIR1958Raj12
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Rajvi Abhey Singh under Article 226 of the Constitution against the State of Rajasthan, Rajvi Amar Sinath & others, for a writ, order or direction in connection with proceedings said to be pending about the succession to the jagir of Benisar in the former State of Bikaner.2. The applicant's case is briefly this. The applicant is a Gajsinghot Rajvi known as Haweliwala and same is the case with Rajvi Amarsingh. The applicant was the Pattedar of village Benisar till it was resumed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act (No. VI) of 1952. The applicant's father Rajvi Gulabsingh was the Pattedar of Benisar till his death when the applicant succeeded to him, and was granted a Patta by the then Ruler, of Bikaner in 1935. The applicant's father Gulab Singh was adopted by Shersing & on Sher Singh's death the Patta of the village was conferred on Gulabsingh by the then Ruler of Bikaner in 1920. The applicant and his father were thus...
Tag this Judgment!Omkarmal Vs. Manak Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj357
ORDERBapna, J.1. This is a revision by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of rent amounting to Rs. 151/7.2. The allegations of the plaintiff were that the defendants were let into possession as tenants by document Ex. 1 dated 16-7-194.5, but the defendants had not paid rent from 1-12-1948 to 30-11-1951 for a period of three years. The defendants admitted the execution of the rent note as also their being let into possession by the plaintiff, but pleaded that the particular property had been sold by auction sale in execution of a decree was purchased by one Khajan Singh, who obtained possession Of the property under orders of the court, and thereafter the interest of the plaintiff ceased in the property, and they began to pay rent to Khajan Singh, and subsequently to his assignee Kanhaiyalal Radhakishan, The trial Court, after evidence accepted the plea of the defendants, and dismissed the suit, and the same judgment was upheld on appeal.3. It was urged by learned counsel for the peti...
Tag this Judgment!J.G. Singh Transport, Shahpura Vs. State Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj99
Dave, J.1. This is a writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in a matter arising under the Indian Motor Vehicles Act.2. The facts leading to this application, which are not in dispute between the parties, are as follows:--3. In the States of Rajasthan and Ajmer, there is an inter-State route about 34 miles in length and it is known as Shahpura-Kekri route. It passes via Matajika-Khera and Kadera. According to a reciprocal transport arrangement between these two States one bus from the State of Rajasthan is permitted on this route. The Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur invited applications for the grant of stage carriage permit on this route, Thereupon, the petitioner Messrs. J. G. Singh Transport Shahpura and ten others applied for the grant 'of a permit. On 18th of March 1955, the Regional Transport Authorityrejected all other applications except that of the petitioner. It was ordered that he be granted a permit to ply one bus on the said route for...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Abhey Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj138; 1957CriLJ541
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Abhey Singh by the Special Judge, Pali, of offences under Sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (No. II) of 1947.2. The prosecution case was briefly this. Abhay Singh accused was Sub-Inspector of Police at Sojat in 1953. Abdul Rehman complainant P. W. 7 is a trader and lives in Sojat Road within the jurisdiction of Sojat Police station. The complainant returned from Bombay, and reached Marwar at 6 P.M. on the 22nd of November. He was met by two persons namely Kadar Bux who is his cousin, and Ismail. These persons, according to him, are police touts.They told him that the accused was out to arrest him, and persuaded him to leave by the mail train for fear that the police might come and arrest him. He remained with these persons at Mar-war junction for sometime, and left for Sojat Road by the 3 A.M, train. When the three of them reached his house a police ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Baksh Kanhaiyalal Vs. Kalyan Baksh Sunderlal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj353
Bapna, J.1. This is a second appeal by Kalyan Baksh, son of Kanhaiyalal, judgment-debtor, in execution proceedings.2. The respondents, Kalyan Baksh and Moolchand, sons of Sunderlal, had a money decree against the appellant. The appellant had a Halwai shop at Gangapur. The respondents, in execution or their decree, attached the entire articles in the shop. The judgment-debtor made an objection that he was an artisan, and the articles attached were tools, and were, therefore, exempt from attachment under Section 60(1)(b) of the Cede of Civil Procedure.The learned Munsif of Gangapur released from attachment certain articles which he considered were used in the making of sweets. The other articles were not considered necessary for the purpose of making sweets, taking into consideration the weak financial resources of the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor filed an appeal, but the same judgment was upheld. The judgment-debtor has come in second appeal.3. It may be said at once that there ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »