Rajasthan Court October 1957 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.
Tejsingh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj169; 1958CriLJ967
K.N. Wanchoo, C.J. 1. These two appeals and the Criminal Revision are connected and we propose to deal with them in one judgment. Appeal No. 196 of 1956 is by Tejsingh and six other accused who have been convicted under Sections 147, 306 and 342, Penal Code and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. Appeal No. 49 of 1957 is by the State against the acquittal of Balchand and four others of these offences. The revision is against Tejsingh and the other appellants of Appeals No. 196 of 1956 for enhancement of sentences passed on them.2. The prosecution story was briefly this. Sub-Inspector Heersingh of Thana Bhimsar received information on 12th of August 1955 that Todarram Brahmin of village Bamania was ill and about to die and that his wife Mt. Sarswati was likely to commit Sati on his death. In consequence of this information Sub Inspector Heersingh along with a number of police constables came to this village to stop Mt. Sarswati from committing Sati. He made enquiries from Mt...
Badri Pratap Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj239
K.L. Bapna, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The petition has been very clumsily drafted and mentions several grievances and discontentments suffered by the petitioner from time to time. He traced his history of service from 5-12-1942 and stated how he was not given promotion from time to time by the former Jaipur State and subsequently, by the Government of Rajasthan, But this is more of a history rather than any grievance which the petitioner can bring to this court.The immediate cause for the bringing of the petition was said to be the result of certain departmental proceedings, taken against him, but even those proceedings were taken and decided sometime in 1951.3. The facts relating to this departmental enquiry were that he was charged with insubordination and wilful absence from duty and was suspended pending enquiry by order of the Government dated the 10/14th May, 1951. As a result of this enquiry, the Government held that the charges h...
Hansia and anr. Vs. Bakhtawarmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj102
K.N. Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is a second appeal by two out of four defendants against the judgment, and decree of the Civil Judge, Sojat, in a suit for redemption of mortagage. It has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge as an important question of law is involved in it.2. Respondents No Section 1 and 2 are plaintiffs. Their case was that their father and uncle had mortgaged a house situate in village Sawrad with Sobha, Tiloka and Bhoma, predecessors-in-title of the defendants for Rs. 209/- in Samwat 1967. The said mortgage was to be redeemed after a period of 31 years. When the plaintiffs sought to redeem the property after the expiry of this period, the defendants refused to accept the money and hand over possession.Consequently, the plaintiffs brought this suit for redemption against the defendants. Two of the defendants, namely Bhania and Benia, sons of Tiloka admitted the plaintiffs' claim. The other two, Hansia and Achalia, contested this suit. They denied th...
Rameshwar Vs. Tarasingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj269
I.N. Modi, J.1. This, is a second appeal by the defendant Rameshwar against the judgment of the District Judge, Jodhpur, dated 18-8-1953, by which he set aside the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, dismissing the plaintiff's suit and decreed it. The suit was for a declaration of of title with respect to a certain lorry No. RJQ 1221.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by Tarasingh plaintiff respondent No. 1 against the present appellant and defendant respondent Goverdhandas. Respondent Goverdhandas was the owner of the lorry. The plaintiff respondent Tarasing brought his suit on the allegation that he had purchased the said lorry from Goverdhandas for a sum of Rs. 2000/- on 9-7-1949, for which the latter had passed a receipt (Ex. P-l). A joint application had been made in the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police for the grant of a licence with respect to the lorry by Tarasingh and Goverdhandas on the same day, and a licence was granted to T...