Rajasthan Court September 1956 Judgments
Punjab National Bank Ltd., Delhi Vs. Firm Isardas Kaluram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj146
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. The following question has been referred to this Bench for decision :'Whether if an application under Section 10 of the Act is rejected on the ground that the applicant is not a displaced person, the ad valorem court-fee is to be paid as required by Article 1, Schedule 1 of the Court-fees Act on the memorandum of appeal?'2. The facts, which have led to this reference, are these:3. The appellant namely the Punjab National Bank Ltd. filed an application before the Civil' Judge, Alwar, acting as the Tribunal under Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act (No. LXX) of 1951 (hereinafter called the Act). Notice was issued to the debtor namely Fi'rm Isardas Kaluram, and it was objected by the debtor that the creditorwas not a displaced person, and therefore not entitled to make an application under Section 10 of the Act. This objection prevailed, and the application of the creditor was dismissed.The creditor filed an appeal to the High Court under Section 40...
Tag this Judgment!Meghraj and anr. Vs. Mt. Soni
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj384
Dave, J. 1. This is a second appeal in a suit for declaration by the plaintiffs who have been unsuccessful in both the courts below. 2. The dispute between the parties relates to the property of one Kanyalal Bagani who died at Phalodi in the year 1937. It appears from the plaint that the plaintiffs Tansukhdas and Meghraj were challaned by the police for stealing the property of the deceased Kanyalal. They were convicted by the Chief Court of the former State of Jodhpur under Section 411 of the Marwar Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.It was further ordered by that Court that the property in dispute would be returned to the present respondent Mt. Soni unless the plaintiffs-appellants could prove their right to that property in a civil court. Accordingly the plaintiffs filed the Present suit in the court Of the Judicial Superintendent Phalodi on 15-5-1942. It was averred by them that they were uncles of the deceased Kanyalal, while defendant Mt. Soni was the widow of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ran Bahadur Singh Vs. Hanuwant Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj29
Wanchoo, C.J.1. These are two connected appeals from the same judgment of the District Judge, jodhpur, in a suit for money. Appeal No. 38 has been filed by maharaj Ram Bahadur Singh against Rao Raja Hanuwant Singh, while appeal No. 45 is a cross-appeal by Rao Raja Hanuwant Singh against Maharaj Ran Bahadur Singh. We shall deal with them together as they arise from the same judgment.2. The suit, out of which these appeals have arisen, was filed by Rao Raja Hanuwant Singh against Maharaj Ran Bahadur Singh, and hisbrother Maharaj Laxman Singh. The case of the plaintiff was that there were money dealings between him & Maharaj Bijai Singh, father of the defendants. On 30-9-1945, Maharaj Bijai Singh after checking the accounts, struck a balance amounting to Rs. 41,188-3-6 and 6 mohars as due to the plaintiff, and made an entry in his own hand to that effect and signed the plaintiff's Bahee.Interest was settled at 6 per cent, This suit was brought for principal and interest plus the price of ...
Tag this Judgment!Neelkanth Mali Vs. Jagannath Singh and State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj59
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by Neelkanth Mali who was plaintiff in a suit brought by him against Mehta Jaganuath Singh and the State of Rajasthan. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. There was an appeal by the plaintiff which was also dismissed. Hence this second appeal. 2. The plaintiff's suit was for a declaration of his title to a plot of land measuring 7 Biswas was on which a house and a well stand in the city of Udaipur. Healso asked for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the property in dispute. Thy plaintiff claimed to be in possession or the property in dispute for a long time, and said that the defendants were trying to dispossess him on the basis of an order passed in St. 1999 for the acquisition at the land for construction of the Fateh High School building. His case further was that the land was never acquired for the Fateh High School, and remained in his possession all along. But in July 1947, the then Ruler of Mewa...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Mal and ors. Vs. Ganpat Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj73
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by Narain Mal and others who are plaintiffs in a suit brought by them in the Court of the Civil Judge of Balotra.2. 'The plaintiffs' case was that Zalam Singh jagirdar of Ratora was indebted to them, and in that connection he executed three bonds on Poh Badi 3rd St. 2005 for Rs. 2,526-4, Rs. 199/- and Rs. 256/4/- respectively, and the rate of interest in each case was 12 per cent per annum. The suit was brought after the death of Zalamsingh. The defendants were the State of Rajasthan, Mst. Pep-kunwar and Mst. Vishankunwar widows of Thakur Zalamsingh, and Ganpat Singh and Jeevraj Singh. In this appeal, we are concerned with Ganpatsingh and Jeevraj Singh only. They were made parties on the ground that they were claiming the right to succeed to Zalamsingh on the basis of adoption. As they were both minors, they were sued through their mothers. The case against them was that as both of them were claiming to be heirs of Zalamsingh by virtue of adoption, th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramratan Vs. Shridhar Kalla
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj7
Modi, J. 1. This is a complaint by one Ramratan Maheshwari, resident of village Deshnok, Tehsil Bikaner, for professional misconduct against Shri Shridhar Kalla, an advocate of this Court. Shri Kalla has been practising in Jaipur for the last three or four years but was regularly practising in the Courts at Jodhpur upto 1952. 2. The allegations made by the petitioner in his petition dated 28-10-1953, may be briefly summarised as follows. The petitioner's case is that he had engaged Shri Kalla in three cases from 1948 onwards. In the first place, he had engaged Shri Kalla to file a suit against Tarachand and Leelchand sons of Khivraj of Barmer for Rs. 1098/4/6 in the Court of the Munsiff, Jodhpur City, and that he had paid him a sum of Rs. 125/- on account of his professional fees and expenses (Rs. 50/- by way of remuneration and Rs. 75/- for court-fees, and certain incidental expenses) in connection with this suit on or about 11-3-1948. Ramratan's case further is that immediately after...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Norati and ors. Vs. Abhai Karan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj101
Bapna , J.1. This is a first appeal by the judgment-debtor in execution proceedings.2. The respondents obtained a decree forrecovery of Rs. 5078/- from the court of the Civil Judge, Sambhar on 20th December, 1944 and the appeal of the defendant was dismissed by the District Judge, Jaipur on 19th January, 1946 on merits. The defendant filed a second appeal on 18th April, 1946. It was dismissed for default of appellant on 8th September, 1948. The first application for execution of the decree was made on 16th September 1949 against Mst. Norati and others, legal representatives of the judgment-debtor. The second application was made on 21-2-55. An objection was raised on behalf of the judgment-debtor that the application was barred by time because the earlier application filed on 16th September, 1949 was made after the lapse of three years of the decree of the District Judge which had been passed on the 19th January, 1946. It was contended that the dismissal of the second appeal by the Hig...
Tag this Judgment!Gopaldas Vs. Ramdeo
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj360
ORDERDave, J. 1. This is an application in revision by the defendant against the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court, Jodhpur, dated the 29th of July 1954. 2. The only question for determination before this Court is whether the document on which the suit is based is a promissory note and inadmissible in evidence, being unstamped. The trial Court has held that it is a bond and that it can be admitted in evidence on payment of penalty. 3. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner has raised a preliminary objection that the orderof the trial Court amounts to admitting the document in evidence, and that the document haying been thus admitted in evidence, its admissibility cannot be challenged by the petitioner. I see no force in this contention and the objection is fit only to be dismissed. It is clear from the order of the trial Court that it has not yet admitted the document in evidence. It has only passed an order saying that the document would be admissible in evidence if penalty is pa...
Tag this Judgment!Punamchand Vs. Jawrilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj354
Dave, J.1. This is an appeal by one of the creditors under Section 75, Insolvency Act against the order of the District Judge, Jodhpur, dated 22-11-1952 adjudicating the respondent Jawrilal as an Insolvent.2. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that he had raised two contentions in the lower Court and requested it to give him an opportunity to substantiate the same but that request was arbitrarily rejected and hence the order of that Court may be set aside and it should be directed to record the appellant's evidence and then proceed to decide the matter afresh.It is pointed out that the first contention raised by the appellant was about the jurisdiction of the Court and the second one was to the effect that the respondent was a monied men and that he was in a position to pay up his debts.3. Learned counsel for the respondent has urged that according to the proviso of Section 24(1)(a). Provincial Insolvency Act, the Court was not bound to hear any further evidence when it was sa...
Tag this Judgment!Chimna Vs. Chunnilal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj378
Modi, J.1. This is second appeal by the judgment-debtor Chimna and arises under, the following circumstances.2. The respondents Chunnilal and Bhakhtawarmal and certain others as plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant appellant for Rs. 3073/7/- on the allegation that they had incurred losses with respect to certain transactions for the purchase of gold mohars and silver petiesmade by them for and at the instance of the defendant and the latter was therefore, liable to reimburse them for the losses incurred.3. The defendant resisted the plaintiffs' suit in his written statement, but it is not necessary for the purposes of this appeal to state the de-Calls of the objections raised. On the 18th March, 1948, the parties entered into a compromise and obtained a decree on its basis. By this compromise decree it was agreed that the defendant would pay a sum of Rs. 700/- on Falgun Sudi 11 Smt. 2004 (corresponding to the 21st March, 1948), and a further instalment of Rs. 100/- on the Bais...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »