Rajasthan Court December 1956 Judgments
Nand Shankar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj148
Bhandari, J. 1. This is a writ petition on behalf of Nand Shankar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India forthe grant of writ of certiorari or any other writ ordirection against the State of Rajasthan, RespondentNo. 1, Inspector-General of Police, Respondent No.2 and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Respondent No. 3, for quashing the order of dismissalof the petitioner dated the 11th October, 1952, passed by Respondent No. 3.2. The petitioner's case is that after he had completed his course of training at the Police Training School, Kishengarh, in the session 1950-51, he was appointed by Respondent No. 2 as a probationary Sub-Inspector in the Rajasthan Police Force, Jaipur Range, by his order No. 11-A1-3551/3897 dated the 20/21st December, 1951, with effect from the 2nd of December, 1951, and that the petitioner was confirmed as Sub-Inspector of Police by Respondent No. 2 by his order No. F/II/A-8-25-52/2910 dated the 2nd September, 1952.The petitioner was posted at vari...
Tag this Judgment!Girdhari Vs. Jawala and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj203
Bapna, J. 1. This is a second appeal by thevendee defendant in a suit for pre-emption. 2. It was alleged lay the respondent Jawala that Girdhari appellant purchased a guara from Jai Dayal and Hardayal for Rs. 26/8/- on 10th September, 1941. The property is situated in village Hamidpur, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar. The basis of the right of pre-emption was said to be that 1. the guara of the plaintiff was situated close to that sold, and 2. the pre-emptor was nearer in relationship to the vendors. 3. The defendant denied the fact of the sale as also the right of the respondent to obtain the property by pre-emption. 4. The suit was at first dismissed, but under a particular legislation by the former Alwar State, which applied to this suit as well, it was restored, and ultimately a decree was passed by the Munsif, Alwar, on 14th November, 1950, on the ground that the plaintiff had a right of pre-emption both on account of his being a near relation of the vendor as also on account of th...
Tag this Judgment!Gaddhar Mal Vs. Kalooram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj250
Sharma, J.1. This is an, appeal by the defendant Gaddhar Mal against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bharatpur. It arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,300/- from the defendant.2. The facts are that in the year 1917, Sona executed a usufructuary mortgage deed in favour of the defendant Gaddhar Mal for a sum of Rs. 4,200/-of certain immovable property situated in the town of Kumher in the erstwhile State of Bharatpur. On 17th July 1929, Gaddhar Mal defendant sub-mortgaged that property with possession to plaintiffs Kaluram and his son Girdhari for a sum of Rs. 3,400/-.The interest was fixed in this later mortgage at the rate of As. -/12/6 per cent, per mensem and it was recited that the property under mortgage was fetching a monthly rent of Rs. 18/14/- at that time and it was stipulated that after the deduction of Rs. 18/14/- from Rs. 26/9/-, the interest on the mortgage money at the stipulated rate, a sum of Rs. 7/11/- per month would be payable t...
Tag this Judgment!Kishori Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj182
Sharma, J.1. This is a petition by Kishori under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur-Alwar, Girraj, Ram Sahai and Chandra.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the Petitioner purchased from Chandra (Respondent No. 5) fields Nos. 54, 55, 56 & 184 in village Pataunda, Tehsil Hindaun, for Rs. 300 & a sale-deed was executed & registered evidencing the sale on the 16th of August 1950. Girraj & Ram Sahai (Respondents Nos. 3 & 4) filed a suit for pre-emption of the aforesaid fields in the Court of emption of the aforesaid fields in the Court of Assistant Collector, Hindaun, on the 14th November, 1950, basing their claim on the ground that the above fields had been sold to the Petitioner, who was not the resident of the village in which the fields were situated and that the said respondents were the residents of the village where the fields were situated. They, therefore, prayed for a de...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Bajji Vs. Bhairon
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj261
Bapna, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant in a suit for possession.2. The respondent Bhairon instituted the suit in the Court of Munsif, Sawai Madhopur, on 18th April 1950, on the allegations that he and one Mst. Man-ni purchased a house in Mohalla Har Sahaiji ka Katla at Sawai Madhopur on 31st July 1928, for a consideration of Rs. 190, and thereafter the plaintiff remained in possession thereof, About 7 years ago, the plaintiff wanted to shift his residence to his field, and Gyarsi, grand-mother of Bajji, requested him for permission to occupy the house, as she had none other house to live in. The plaintiff gave permission to Gyarsi and to his son's wife Jagni, mother of the defendant, to live in the house. It was alleged that Gyarsi had died, but Jagni and Bajji continued to live in the house. Jagni had since contracted re-marriage, and Bajji went to her husband's house, and, therefore, the plaintiff asked them to give back the house to him, but Bajji asserted her own clai...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Das Vs. Ghisalal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj264
Bapna, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of money.2. Respondent Ghisalal instituted the present suit on 25th August 1951, against the appellant Ma-hant Gopal Das on the allegation that the said Ma-hant Gopal Das borrowed Rs. 1,475 from the plaintiff on 15th September 1948, for the purpose of providing Bhog Kharach lor the temple of Shri Janki Ballabhji, of which the defendant was the Mahant, and promised to repay the same on the 14th of January 1949, but as he failed to pay the same, the suit had to be instituted for recovery of the principal amount of Rs. 1,475 and interest Rs. 258-2-0, total being Rs. 1,733-2-0.3. The defendant denied 'the execution of the ruqqa or the taking of the loan, and pleaded that one Kan Das was the Adhikari of the temple, who had been turned out and the ruqqa had been fabricated with his assistance. The defendant specifically raised the issue how the defendant was personally sought to be made liabie when the purpose of the...
Tag this Judgment!Shankerlal Vs. Motilal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj267
Modi, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff Shankerlal in a suit for contribution.2. The facts leading up to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows. There was a house belonging to Parakh Motichand Govinddas situate in Udaipur City. The ancestors of the plaintiff Shankerlal and defendants respondents Motilal and Pannalal had agreed to purchase this house for Rs. 19,999/- from the Parakhs on Maha Sudi 14 Sm. 1945. They wanted to back out of this agreement and this led to a suit by the Parakhs against the ancestors of the present parties with the result that a decree was passed in favour of the Parakhs against the ancestors of the plaintiff and the defendants respondents for a sum of Rs. 19,999/-. This decree is dated the 12-7-1892. According to the practice which was in force in the former State of Mewar, this decree was affirmed by the Mehdraj Sabha on the 8-4-1896, and finally confirmed by His Highness the Maharana of Udaipur on the 31-8-1896. The decree-holders took out execut...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Seth Hiralal Hazarilal Vs. Jagan Nath
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj298
Bapna, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge Baran, dated 14-12-49, by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money.2. The suit was originally instituted by Hazarl-lal describing himself as the son of Hiralal, proprietor of the firm of Seth Hiralar Hazarilal. The defendant Jagannath was described as son of Lalli Bam, owner of the shop of Lalliram Jagannath at Tekneri Pachar, Madhya Pradesh. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 3703/-/3. It was Instituted on 23rd October, 1948, in the Court ot Civil Judge, Baran, and the cause of action lor purposes of limitation was stated to have arisen on the 15th of November 1945. The defendant took a preliminary objection that the plaintiff was not the sole owner of the firm Hiralal and Hazarilal, but one Sunderlal was also a partner, and that as the suit was riot in the name of the firm the suit was bad for nor-joinder. The plaintiff filed an application on 16th February, 1849, praying lor amendment of the plaint s...
Tag this Judgment!Sukha Soniya Mina Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ799
Ranawat, J.1. The following question has been referred to this Bench:Whether the deposition of a medical witness taken and attested by a Magistrate in the presence of the accused may be given in evidence at the trial in spite of the fact that the deponent had been called as a witness before the statement is tendered in evidence2. Section 509, Cr. P. C. lays down the rule thatthe deposition of a Civil Surgeon or other medical witness, taken and attested by a Magistrate in the presence of the accused, or taken on commission under Chap. XL, may be given in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, although the deponent is not called as a witness.There has been some conflict of opinion on the meaning of, Section 509 on the question whether a deposition as mentioned in Section 509 can be admitted into evidence when the deponent is also called as a witness. In Rangappa Goundan v. Emperor AIR 1936 Mad 426(A), Cornish J. observed as follows:Section 509, Criminal P. C....
Tag this Judgment!The Bundi Municipal Board Vs. the Bundi Electric Supply Co. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj278
Ranavvat, J. 1. This appeal has been referred to a division Bench by Bapna J., as an important point of law whether a dispute in a pending appeal can be referred to arbitration was involved in it. 2. A suit was filed by the Bundi Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Bundi, against the Municipal Board of Bundi on 1st July 1952, for refund of certain moneys collected from it by way of octroi duty and also for an injunction restraining the defendant from collecting octroi duty from it in future. The suit was partly decreed and an injunction was issued restraining the defendant from collecting octroi duty from the plaintiff in future. The defendant went in appeal to the Court of the Civil Judge, Bundi, but it was dismissed on 19th December 1953. The defendant filed a second appeal in this Court. While that appeal was pending an application was moved by both the parties on 14th September 1956 for referring the matter in dispute in the appeal to arbitrators. The petition came up before Bapna J., who ha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »