Rajasthan Court July 1956 Judgments
Chiranjilal and anr. Vs. Gordhan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj102
Ranawat, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs, Chiranji-lal and Chitarmal, against the judgment of the District Judge, Alwar dated the 24th May, 1951, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for partition of coparcenary properties.2. The facts of the case, alleged by the plaintiffs are that Ram Pratap, who was living at the time of the filing of the suit, was thefather of Chiranjilal and Chitarmal, who are the plaintiffs and also of Gordhan who is the defendant No. 1. The family consisting of the father and three sons was alleged to be joint and the properties specified in the plaint were alleged to be joint family properties. The plaintiffs claimed 2/3rd share in the joint family properties.The defendant, Ram Pratap, filed a written statement saying that there were no ancestral properties left by Jhuntaram, the grandfather of the plaintiffs, and that the properties of which partition was claimed were his own self-acquired properties, and the plaintiffs had no share in them. He had ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Rawatsingh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj26; 1957CriLJ103
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Rawatsingh by the Sessions Judge of Jodhpur of offences under Section 6 (e), Rajasthan Armed Constabulary Act (No. 12 of 1950) (hereinafter called the Act), and Section 409, Penal Code.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute and these are that the accused Rawat Singh was enrolled in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary Force in 1951. At the time of enrolment certain articles, which form the kit of a member of the force, were handed over to him. It appears that the accused left his post on 5-5-1953, without leave. The matter was reported to the Company Commander Shri Sanwatsingh, and it was found that certain articles out of the kit were missing.Thereafter, a constable was sent after the accused, and he was arrested at Ramdeo which is the rail-head for Jaisalmere where the accused was posted at the time. He was brought back to Jaisalmer, when five of the articles out of his kit were found in his possession, namely ...
Tag this Judgment!Sahiram Vs. Rajasthan State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj27
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Sahiram in an election matter.2. Sahiram stood as a candidate for election for the office of Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat of Dalpatpura. There was an objection by another candidate Kurdaram that he was disqualified under Section 11(g), Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. This objection was upheld by the returning officer.The present application is directed against this decision of the returning officer. The applicant contends that he has no remedy under Rule 19 of the Panchayat Election Rules, 1954 by means of an election petition and has, therefore, come to this Court.3. We agree that the applicant has no remedy under Rule 19 of the Panchayat Election Rules and his application is, therefore, maintainable before us, as he is not a defeated candidate.4. Section 11 prescribes qualification of Panchas and under Clause (g) it is provided that any person who has been convicted by a competent Court of an offence ...
Tag this Judgment!Sattanmal Vishandas Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1960Raj121
ORDERK.L. Bapna, J.1. This is a revision petition by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of damages for nondelivery of goods by the railway administration against the judgment of the Small Cause Court, Jaipur, dated 11-11-1954.2. Narayan Das Nebhan Das despatched 101 bags of garlic and 50 bags of onion from Jamnagar to the petitioner on 8-2-1953, under Railway Receipt No. 1310599 invoice No. 32 of the same date. When the consignment arrived at Jaipur, six bags of garlic were found short. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 390/- as the price of the six bags of garlic weighing 6 maunds, and Rs. 17/8/- by way of interest and Rs. 1/8/- on account of postage in all Rs. 409/-. It was alleged that proper notice had been given to the Union of India. The defendants' case was that the consignment had been loaded by the consignor and had not been checked by the defendants' employee at Jamnagar, and it had been mentioned on the Railway Receipt that the goods were at senders' risk, and, therefore, the defe...
Tag this Judgment!Rambul Singh Vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj19
Ranawat, J. 1. This is an application by Rambul Singh against the Board of Revenue, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Behror, and Ghinsa.2. The allegattions of the petitioner are that he was discharged from the military service some time in the year 1951 and thereafter he obtained possession of his land in village, Shahjanpur, Tehsil Behror, from his tenant, namely Ghinsa. But Ghinsa made an application on 28-7-1952, under Section 7, Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Behror, that he was illegally dispossessed.The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the application with reference to Government of RajasthanNotification No. F.1(4) Rev./51 of 11-1-1951, by which the application of the Ordinance was barred, in respect of the land of the military personnel either discharged from service after coming into force of the Ordinance or who are still in the employment of the Government.Ghinsa went in rev...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›