Rajasthan Court September 1956 Judgments
Jankidas and anr. Vs. Laxminarain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj32
ORDERWanchoo, C.J.1. This is a revision by the plaintiffs whose suit has been dismissed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Jodhpur.2. The plaintiffs' suit was briefly this: Laxminarain defendant had mortgaged his house usufructuarily for Rs. 700/- to the plaintiffs on 27-6-1953. On the same day, the plaintiffs mortgagees in their turn gave a lease of the house to the defendant mortgagor at Rs. 3/8/- per month, and put the lessee in possession. As the rent was not paid, the plaintiffs filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment in the court of Joint Kotwal No. 2, Jodhpur. That suit was fought up to the High Court of the former State of Marwar, and the High Court gave a decree for arrears of rent, but decided that the lessee could not be ejected and the prayer for ejectment was not allowed.The present suit was filed by the plaintiffs in February, 1953, claiming arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 126/- for 3 years preceding the date of suit. The suit was resisted by the defendant, who amon...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Rajmal Vs. Dr. Krishan Swaroop
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj118
Bapna, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the landlord in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent.2. The appellant landlord instituted a suit for ejectment on 16-10-1951, on the ground that the premises were required reasonably and bona fide for the use of the landlord. He claimed arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 125/- and Rs. 32/- on account of damages at the rate of Rs. 2/- per day on the expiry of the time limit contained in the notice to quit.The suit was contested by the defendant on a plea that no certificate from the Rent Controller had been obtained prior to the institution of the suit, as required by Section 14(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. XVII of 1950). He denied that the premises were required by the landlord reasonably and bona fide for his own use, and further he questioned the validity of the notice to quit.The trial court, after evidence, found that the premises were required reasonably and bona fide by the plaintiff for h...
Tag this Judgment!Nopla and ors. Vs. Mula and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj342
ORDERBapna, J.(1) This is a reference under Section 40 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951.(2) Respondents Mulla, Ralia and Ghisa, brought a suit against the defendant-appellants Nopla, Mahadeva, Sheosahai, Ramnath and Par-bhati, praying for a permanent injunction res-training the latter from obstructing them and their cattle from passing through a Nala constituting the way to the Banjar land and from obstructing their cattle being grazed in the area. Plaintiffs' allegations were that the defendants by laying hedges across the said Nala had obstructed the passage of the plaintiffs and their cattle to the pasture land. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' right of way through the Nala.(3) The suit was valued at Rs. 2100/- and was originally instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge, Alwar, who returned the plaint holding that the suit was triable by a revenue Court, When the case came before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Behror, an objection was raised...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Bashiran Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj348; 1957CriLJ1315
ORDERSharma, J.(1) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu recommending that the conviction of Mst. Beshiran and her husband Mollabux under Rule 6 read with Rule 3 of the Indian Passport Rules, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) be set aside.(2) The applicant along with Mollabux are nationals of Pakistan. They came to India under passport No. 328843 on 25th August, 1955. They had a category 'C' visa to visit India and it authorised them to stay in India uptil 18th November, 1955. They, however, did not leave this country on or before that date but over-stayed without getting the period of stay extended by any competent authority.The police, therefore, challaned both Mst. Bashiran and Mollabux for committing an offence under Rule 6 read with Rule 3 of the Rules. The two accused admitted that they had over-stayed in India. Learned trial court consequently found them guilty under Rule 6 read with Rule 3 and sentenced Mollabux to 10 days S. I, and to Mst...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Vs. Kessingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj352; 1957CriLJ1316
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in a case under Section 107 Cr. P. C. It has been recommended by the learned sessions judge that the order of the S. D. M. Nawalgarh dated 30-6-56 stopping the proceedings of the case under Section 249 Cr. P. C. and releasing the non-applicants Kessingh, Bhagtawarsingh, Madansingh and Chatarsingh be set aside. 2. parties have not appeared. I have gone through the record of the case and have also perused the judgments of both the lower courts as well as the explanation of the learned Magistrate. I do not think that under the circumstances of this case, learned S. D. M. was entitled to stop the proceedings in this case under Section 249 Cr. P. C. Section 249 applies to a summons case which terminates, either in acquittal or conviction of the accused. This is quite apparent from the phraseology of the said section which runs as follows : 'Section 249 -- In my case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Pre...
Tag this Judgment!isharchand and ors. Vs. Rawat and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj341
Dave, J.(1) This is a second appeal by the decree-holders whose application for execution of their decree has been dismissed by both the courts below on the ground of limitation.(2) The facts which are not in dispute may be stated briefly in order to understand as to how the question of limitation has arisen. The appellants got a decree on 27th of May 1942. They presented their first application for execution on 7th of April 1943.The decree was against one Sukha; but Sukha. having died, the application was made against his legal representatives Rawat and Birbal and satisfaction of the decree was prayed by the arrest of these two persons. It appears that no process was issued against Rawat and Birbal because the appellants failed to pay the process fee and ultimately their application for execution was consigned to record on 30th of June, 1948.(3) On 16th of November 1950 the appellants presented second application for execution. It was also on the same pattern as the first application ...
Tag this Judgment!Bherulal Vs. Ghisulal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj387
ORDERDave, J. 1. This is a revision application by the defendant against the order of the Munsif Nathdwara dated 9th of July 1958.2. The facts giving rise to it are that the non-petitioner filed a money suit against the petitioner on the basis of a document dated 25-9-1953. The defendant's objection in the trial court was that the said document waa a promissory note and since it was unstamped, it was inadmissible in evidence. The learned Munsif dismissed this objection. He has come to the conclusion that the document in dispute was a bond and not a promissory note and, therefore, it can be admitted in evidence on payment of requisite stamp duty and penalty.3. The document runs as follows :--'Sidh sri bhai sri Ghisulalji vald Nandlalji Lodha Nathdwarayala sri Bherulal vald. Gordharji Sikligar Nathdwarawala Ki Jaysri Krishna Van. chavsi. Apranch aaj miti Karkhana ka karigara ne tumara pas thi rupaya vagera deyaya tatha mare ghare saman rokar vagera Hya jira kul rupaya 1887/5/9 khara dena...
Tag this Judgment!Anandilal Vs. Chief Panchayat Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj163
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Anandilal for a writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution and arises in the following circumstances : 2. Election for the Tehsil Panchayat of Jamwa Ramgarh was to be held on 31st of May, 1955. Nominations were called up to 19th of May, 1955, and the scrutiny of nominations was to take place between 20th of May and 22nd of May. 23rd of May was fixed for withdrawal of candidates. The applicant filed a nomination paper for election as Panch of this Panchayat. His case is that the scrutiny did not take place between 20th and 22nd of May as provided in the programme of the election, and that it was held actually on 23rd of May. The Returning Officer after the scrutiny accepted the nomination of the applicant, and published a list of nominated candidates according to Rule 28 of the Panchayat Election Rules 1954. The applicant's case further is that thereafter he only came to know on 31st of May, 1955, when 'the election was taki...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhudayal Vs. Chief Panchayat Officer, Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj95
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Prabhudayal under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ direction or order in connection with the election of Malharna Dungar Panchayat.2. The applicant's case is that the election for the Panchayat at Malharna Dungar was fixed for the 20th of October, 1954, under Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Election Rules, 1954, the returning officer has, at least 7 days before the date of election, to announce for the information of the inhabitants of the Panchayat Circle by notice and in such/other manner as the Chief Panchayab Officer may direct the number and names of wards, if any, the number of Panchas to be elected from each ward and from the entire Panchayati Circle and the date, time and place of election. The applicant submits that the Returning Officer did not comply with Rule 4, inasmuch as he issuedthe notice under Rule 4 on the 18th of October, 1954.The applicant raised certain other points which,however we do not consider it necessary...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›