Rajasthan Court November 1956 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.
Kanwar Budh Singh Vs. Sahebzada Mohd. Yaseen
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj304
Bapna, J. 1. This is a reference by the learned District Judge. Jaipur City.2. Dewan Bahadur Kesri Singh obtained a money decree for Rs. 4254/- against one Hamir Khan on 22-9-1941. The last application for execution was filed against Mohammad Yaseen Khan, son of the original judgment-debtor, on 1-2-1952. The decree-holder prayed for attachment of the house of the judgment-debtor in execution of the decree. An objection was raised on behalf of Mo-hammad Yaseen Khan that he belonged to the royal family of Tonk, and that his house was exempt from attachment under notification dated 25-11-34 published in the Gazette of 1-12-34 of the former Tonk State. The executing court allowed the objection. The decree-holder filed an appeal against the judgment of the Civil Judge, Tonk, dated 26-11-1952. The decree-holder died in the meanwhile and his legal representatives were broughton record. It was urged on behalf of the decree-holder that the notification referred to by the judgment-debtor was no ...
Mst. Nozi and ors. Vs. Mohanlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj128
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is a first appeal by Nozi and her sons Lichmichand and Ganeshmal against the dismissal of their suit by the Civil and Additional Sessions Judge, Merta.2. The case of the plaintiffs appellants was that one Shivnarain deceased was the maternal-uncle of Mst. Nozi. She used to look after him in, his old age, and consequently he was pleased with her. To show that pleasure, he gifted a house belonging to him to Mst. Nozi and her sons who are the three plaintiffs in the suit.The gift deed was written on 27-4-1944, and registered on 29-4-1944. Shivnarain continued to live in the house in dispute with the consent of the plaintiffs till he died in December, 1944. Defendant Mohanlal had come to Jaswantgarh, where Shivnarain used to live and where the house is situate, some months before Shivnarain's death when Shivnarain was ill, and had stayed with Shivnarain for sometime. Thereafter, he had gone away leaving his wife with Shivnarain. The defendant cams again to Jaswantgarh ...
Mt. Phool Sundri Vs. Gurbans Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj97
Wanciioo, C.J. 1. This is a revision by Mt. Phool Sundri against, the order of the District Judge, Bikaner and arises in the following circumstances. The applicant filed a suit against seven defendants, the last of them being the State of Rajasthan. The applicant claimed Rs. 21,000/- as damages in this suit for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.The District Judge framed issues on the 13th of July 1954. On that date, he ordered that the plaint disclosed no cause of action against defendants Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7. He consequently rejected the plaint as against these defendants. The present revision is against this order rejecting the plaint against four out of seven defendants.2. A preliminary objection has been taken by the opposite parties and their contention is that the order in question was appealable and as no appeal was filed, this Court should not come to the rescue of the applicant in, revision. We have heard learned counsel on this preliminary point and have come to the...
Bhuramal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj104; [1957]8STC463(Raj)
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. These are seven applications tinder Article 227 of the Constitution for issue of a writ, direction or order in connection with the Sales Tax Act of Raj-asthan (hereinafter called the Act.) We propose to decide them by one order as the points raised in them are common.2. The applicants are building contractors and undertake building work for the Public Works Department and other departments of the State. In connection with their contracts, they supply material as well as labour, & after their work is finished are paid by the State both for the material used by them in 'the building or road or any other work and for the labour supplied by them.In this connection, notices were issued to the applicants by the Sales Tax Officers of various places calling upon them to submit a return oftheir turnover with respect to their contracts, so that they might be assessed to sales-tax and made to pay it. In some cases, the applicants have already paid the tax. Their contention, is th...
The State Vs. Umraokhan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ477
ORDERModi, J.1. This revision raises an interesting point as to the interpretation of Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the point is not covered by authority.2. The facts leading up to this revision may be shortly stated. The case for the prosecution is that there is a village named Kelnor in Tehsil Banner on the border of India and Pakistan within the territories of India where one Akheysingh lived. It is said that on the 7th September, 1952, certain dacoits came from Pakistan and decamped with a number of cattle belonging to Akheysingh, valued at. Rs. 3,000/- approximately. A servant of Akheysing, who was grazing them, was in charge of the cattle. The first information report was lodged at thana Chohtan on the 8th September, 1952, by Akheysingh. The names of the accused were mentioned in the first report.The police investigated the case and were unable to arrest the accused. Eventually on the 12th October, 1955, a challan was submitted under Section 512, Cri. P. C., ...
Gaya Parshad Vs. Basdeo and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj220
Bhandari, J. 1. This is a civil second appeal by Gaya Parshad one of the defendants in suit No. 38 of 1951, filed for the recovery of rent by Basdeo and two others against him and Baijnath respondent in the court of the Civil Judge, Sikar, on the 2-3-1951. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had taken one shop situated in the town of Fatehpur on rent from them on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-, under the rent note dated the 12-6-1948, and that, on the non-payment of the rent by the defendants, the plaintiffs obtained a decree on the 18-12-1948. against them for the recovery of rent due upto 19-10-1948. The plaintiffs further alleged that a sum of Rs. 1415/- had become due as arrears of rent from the defendants from 20-10-1948, upto 28-2-1951, but the defendants did not pay the rent in spite of notice to them. The plaintiffs further added a sum of Rs. 1S5/- as interest at 1% P. M. to this amount and claimed the sum of Rs. 1600/-. Both the defendants filed separate written statements ...
Mewar Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Girdharisingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj115
Wanchoo, C.J.1. Two questions have been referred by a learned Single Judge for reply by a larger Bench and that is how the matter has come before us. These questions are:(1) Whether the authority appointed by the State Government under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act is a Civil Court subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.(2) Whether it would be proper for this Court to interfere with the orders of the said authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to correct its errors.2. The facts which have led to this reference may be briefly narrated. The opposite parties are in the employ of the applicant, namely the Mewar Textile Mills Ltd., Bhilwara. The applicant imposed a fine on them for late coming on various dates and deducted the amount from the wages paid to them. Thereupon, the opposite parties applied to the District Magistrate, Bhilwara, who is the authority appointed under Section 15 of the Payment...
Dhool Chand Vs. Ganpat Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj283
Bapna, J. 1. This is a second appeal in execution proceedings. 2. Ganpat Lal Mahajan had a decree against one Ambalal Brahmin for recovery of money. Ambalal judgment-debtor died, and Ganpat Lal wanted to execute the same against his legal representatives, and made an application that his legal representatives were Kesar Lal and Dhool Chand, against whom the decree should be executed. Dhool Chand filed an objection on 5th August 1948, that although he was the son of Ambalal, he had been adopted by Ganpat Lal, brother of Ambalal. It was, therefore, prayed that the decree be not executed against him. The parties led evidence, and the Civil Judge, Gangapur, held by Judgment of 24th November 1949, that Dhool Chand had failed to prove that he had been adopted to Ganpat Lal. The objection was dismissed. Dhool Chand filed an appeal, and Mr. Gajendra Singh, District Judge, Bharatpure, was of opinion that the matter of the adoption was not as relevant as an enquiry as to who was in possession of...
Lachhmi NaraIn and anr. Vs. Mangilal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj330
ORDERBapna, J.1. This is an application under Order 22, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. An appeal was presented by Lachhmi Narain and his son Sita Ram, plaintiffs, against Mangilal and Rameswar, defendants-respondents, in a suit for redemption of immovable property on 6th March, 1952. Notices of the appeal on the two respondents were served personally some time in April, 1952, and on 12th May, 1952, an order was recorded that the case was complete, and may be entered in the list of ripe cases. On 6th August, 1954, it was ordered that the case be put up for hearing on llth April, 1955. On llth April an application was presented by the appellants under Order 22 Rule 9, Civil P. C., that they came to know from one Bhagirath on 6th April, 1955, that Mangilal respondent had died on Pos Budi 13, Samwat 2018 (2nd January, 1954); and had left as his heir and representative an adopted son Kalyan. It was prayed that the abatement of the appeal against Mangilal be set aside, and Kalyan ...
Kanta Devi and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj134
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Smt. Kanta Devi and Kriparam under Article 226 of the Constitution against the State of Rajasthan for a writ, direction or order in connection with the nomination of members to the Municipal Board of Pokaran. (2) Brief facts alleged by the applicants are these:There is a municipality in the town of Pokaran governed by the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act (No. XXIII of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act). The membership of the Board consists of eight elected and two nominated members. The election to the Board took place sometime before January, 1956 and eight persons were duly elected thereto. Thereafter on 28th January, 1956, the Government of Rajasthan made two nominations in exercise of the powers conferred on them by Section 9 of the Act. These two persons are the two applicants before us.The District Magistrate then issued a notice fixing a date, place and time for election of the Chairman of the Board. The date was the 7th of March, 1956....