Rajasthan Court November 1956 Judgments
Mubarak Begam and anr. Vs. Sushil Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj154
Dave, J.1. This is a first appeal in execution proceedings against the order of the Civil Judge, Bikaner, dated the 3rd September, 1954, and arises in the following circumstances :--2. On 26th of April, 1953, respondent No. 1, Sushil Kumar, who is a minor, presented an execution application through his next friend and guardian Mt. Gitabai, who is his mother, for execution of a decree dated 12th July, 1951, against the judgment-debtor Zahur Ahmad. The decree was for Rs. 9,525-14-0 and the said amount was to be realised from the sale of the mortgaged property which consisted of a house situated in Mohalla Gusaiyan at Bikaner. This property was put to auction by the sales Amin from 4th January, 1954, to 7th January, 1954. On the last date, i.e., 7th January, 1954, the highest bid was that of one Gopalal Goswami for Rs. 8,500. It was represented to the Court that the bid was low and, therefore, the executing Court ordered the Sales Amin to auction the property again on 8th of January, 1954...
Tag this Judgment!ShrinaraIn and anr. Vs. Chunnilal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj159
Dave, J. 1. This is plaintiffs' first appeal against the judgment 'and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur, dated 28th September, 1953 whereby their money suit based on a 'hundi' has been dismissed with costs. 2. The appellants' case was that the respondents Chunilal, Leharilal and Mohanlal are brothers; but in the partnership of respondent No. 4 Mangilal, they had a joint business and their firm went by the name of Leharilal Maugilal. On behalf of this firm, respondent Leharilal handed over to the plaintiffs a 'darshani hundi' dated Magh Sud 13 Samwat 2005 for Rs. 5,000/- in consideration of the money which the respondents' said firm was liable to pay to the plaintiffs. Thus the drawer of this 'hundi' was Leharilal on behalf of the defendants' firm, the drawee was the defendants' firm and the payee was the plaintiffs' firm. The plaintiffs sold this 'hundi' to the Bank of Jaipur Ltd. at Kishangarh. The bank, however, returned it to the plaintiffs on 19th of February 1949 as i...
Tag this Judgment!Mukanda and ors. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj331; 1957CriLJ1187
Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal by Mukanda and 14 others who have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar as follows:Name of the appellantConvictionSentence(1) Mukanda (2) HariSingh (3) Maman (4) Mangla (5) Bansi (6) Ghisa (7) Banwari (8) HarnathSection 147, I.P.C.1 1/2 years' R. I. and a line of Rs. 100, each and in default three months' imprisonment each.(9) Ramjilal(10) Ram Swaroop(11) Meena(12) Amra Sections 147 & 323, I.P.C.4 months' rigorous imprisonment each. 4 months' rigorous imprison ment each sentence to run concurrently.(13) Balbir (14) Sohan (15) CheluSection 323, I.P.CFour months' rigorous imprisonment each.2. According to the prosecution, in the village Anandpur, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, there are two principal communities, namely, Ahirs and Chamars. There are about 50 houses of Ahirs and 20 or ,25 houses Of Chamars there. The Chamars had made applications to the district authorities for allotting some banjar land in the village to them for...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Jati Vs. Daljit Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj359; 1957CriLJ1317
ORDERModi, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge, Pali, in a proceeding under Section 12 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, and arises under the following circumstances.2. It appears that on 15-6-1956, one Daljitsingh filed a complaint, against Panna and his wife Mst. Jati who is the petitioner before me to the effect that Panna and Mst. Jati were about to solemnize the marriage of their daughter Pukhli aged six years and of another girl Najuri (daughter of one Jetha) aged 12 years and that the marriages were to be performed on the same evening and therefore prayed that an injunction be issued against Panna and his wife prohibiting the said marriages. A further prayer was made that 'the accused' be punished in the matter.The Sub Divisional Magistrate Pali in whose. Court the aforesaid application was filed examined Daljitsingh, registered it under Section 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act and directed that notices be issued to Panna and his wife to refrain from performin...
Tag this Judgment!General Manager Northern Rly., New Delhi Vs. Sajjan Raj and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj78
Dave, J. 1. This is a writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi. It is directed against one Sajjanraj, who is an employee of the Northern Railway and against the District Magistrate, Jodhpur, who is non-petitioner No. 2. 2. The facts giving rise to it are that the non-petitioner No. 1 Sajjanraj, was an employee of the Northern Railway and so he drew ration for himself and his dependants from the Railway Grain Shop at concessional rates. It was alleged against him that from November 1947 to May 1948 he drew ration illegally for his brother Uttamchand although his brother was over 18 years of age and was not dependant upon him. The matter was ultimately decided by the Divisional Personal Officer, Northern Railway and Rs. 63-4-0 were ordered to be recovered from the wages of non-petitioner No. 1 under Section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The said amount of Rs. 63-4-0 was accordingly deducted from hi...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Kan Kanwari Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ688
Sharma, J.1. The appellant Mst. Kan Kanwari along with Mangtu Gujar and two others, was tried in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar. She was charged under Sections 363 and 365 I.P.C., Mangtu was charged under Sections 363, 365 and 366 I. P, C. and the remaining two under Sections 365, 366 and 366, I. P. C, read with Section 109, I. P. C.2. The prosecution case was that a Sunar girl named Gita, about 11 or 12 years old, resident of the town Fatehpur, Sikar District, was living under the guardianship of her mother Mst. Sugni, her father having died. About a couple of days before the 3rd April 1955, hereinafter to be referred to as the date of occurrence, Hanuman Oswal, hereinafter to be referred to as Oswal, husband of the appellant Mst. Kan Kan-wari, approached Mst. Sugni and asked her to supply one seer milk daily, i.e., half a seer in the morning and a half a seer in the evening to him. She agreed, but said that she had no one to take the milk, to his house, upon which ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramniranjan Kedia Vs. the Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Udaipur and Or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-26-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj210; [1958]33ITR812(Raj)
Wanchoo, C.J. This is an application by Ramniranjan Kedia under Article 226 of the Constitution in an income-tax matter, 2. Though the application is a long one running into 44 paragraphs, the brief and salient facts on which it is based are these --3. A notice was issued to the applicant under Section 34(1), Income-tax Act (hereinafter called the Act), on 27-3-1954, by the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, in connection with the assessment year 1945-46, apparently on the ground that certain income had escaped assessment. The applicant appeared before the Income-tax Officer, and objected to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to assess him under that section. The case came for disposal to the VII Additional Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, stationed at Udaipur, and that Officer ordered levy of tax amounting to Rs. 2,92,665-5-0 on the applicant by an order of March 1955. The applicant has preferred, an appeal against that order, and the appeal is pending before the Appellate Assistant Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalsingh Vs. Sagarmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj68
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This matter has come before this Bench on a reference by a learned Single Judge. He has not formulated the question to be answered by the Bench. We shall, therefore, briefly give the circumstances in which the reference has been made, and then formulate the question arising therefrom.2. A suit was brought by the plaintiffs who are opposite parties in this revision against three defendants. One of whom was Mangal Singh. Summonses were issued a number of times ag there was difficulty in service. One of the dates fixed was 16th of July, 1951. Summons was issued to Mangalsingh defendant who is the applicant in this revision for that date. The process server reported that Mangalsingh had refused to accept the summons. Therefore, the Court passed an order on the 16th of July, 1951, that there was sufficient service on Mangalsingh and that the proceedings should go on ex parte against him. After further adjournment, the case came to be fixed for the 8th October, 1952. On this...
Tag this Judgment!Chandmal and anr. Vs. Ramakishan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj71
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is a reference by a learned Single Judge of this Court, and the point referred has been formulated as follows:--'Whether an order of remand passed under Section 151, C.P.C. or otherwise and from which no appeal lies can he challenged by way of revision under Section 115 C.P.C. in view of the decision of this Court in Prohit Swarup Narain v. Gopi Nath, ILR (1953) 3 Raj 483: AIR 1953 Raj 137 (FB) (A) and whether the revision against the order of remand in the present case is competent?'2. The law laid down in ILR (1953) 3 Raj 483: (AIR 1953 Raj 137) (FB) (A) was in these terms -'Where it is open to a party to raise a ground of appeal in High Court under Section 105 C.P.C. from the final decree or order with respect to any order which has been passed during the pendency of the case, it should be held that an appeal in that case lies to the High Court within the meaning of the term 'in which no appeal lies thereto' appearing in Section 115 of C.P.C.'3. The answer to t...
Tag this Judgment!Samdu Khan Vs. the Rajasthan State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj277
ORDERModi, J.1. This is a revision by the plaintiff Samdukhan against an order of the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur, directing that the plaintiff's suit being one for a declaration plus consequential relief, he should pay ad valorem court-fee on the plaint.2. The facts are briefly these. On the 28th August, 1951, the plaintiff gave a tender for certain stone quarries to the mining department for Rs. 19,551/- which turned out to be the highest. His case is that this tender was not accepted within reasonable time and that for the first time on the 13th April, 1952, he was informed that the tender had been accepted. Thereafter the plaintiff demanded to be put in possession of the quarries, and his grievance is that these were never handed over t to him. Be that as it may, he deposited Rs. 7011/-in three instalments in the mining department and on the 2nd August, 1952, the Assistant Director served a notice upon him to put in a sum of Rs. 3910-7- within a week otherwise his lease would b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »