Rajasthan Court April 1957 Judgments
Madanlal and ors. Vs. Durgadutt and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj206
I.N. Modi, J.1. These are two cross appeals arising out ofthe judgment of the Civil Judge, Churu, dated 21-4-1953, in a suit for possession of certain land, and we have also before us the cross objection filed by defendant Nathmal and his three brothers. Appeal No. 28 of 1953 was filed by Madanlal plaintiff in this Court, while appeal No. 34 of 1954 was filed originally by defendant Nathmal and others before the District Court and thereafter re-presented to this Court on 15-2-1954.These defendants thereafter filed a cross-objection in this Court in order to avoid the plea of limitation, which might possibly have been raised by the plaintiff on the ground that the defendants had filed their appeal in the wrong court and had presented it in this Court long after the period of limitation had expired, but there is no dispute before us that the cross-objection was filed within one month's time of the service of notice of the plaintiff's appeal on these defendants. We proceed to dispose of t...
Tag this Judgment!Jairamdas Vs. Regional Transport and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Raj312
Modi, J. 1. This is a writ application by Jairamdas under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and has come before this Full Bench as it involves the determination of a question as to the true scope and meaning of Section 64(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which has been differently answered by bench de-cisions of this Court in Mohammed Jamil v. State Transport Authority, C. W. P. No. 122 of 1955, D/-7-9-1955: 1956 Raj LW 184: ( (S) AIR 1956 Raj 125) (A) and Sainiks Motors v. State Transport Authority, C. W. P. No. 37 of 1955, D/- 3-10-1955: 1956 Raj LW 182: ( (S) AIR 1956 Raj 65) (B). The former decision is by a bench consisting of Bapna and Bhandari JJ. sitting at Jaipur and was given earlier and the ether one was given by the Chief Justice and Dave J. sitting at Jodhpur, and this bench was obviously unaware of the earlier decision.2. The facts of the present case may be shortly stated. The petitioner was granted two permits for plying two stage-carriages on the Po-karan Phalsoond...
Tag this Judgment!Doongarmal and anr. Vs. Roopsingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Raj336
Modi, J. 1. These two first appeals raise a common question as to their proper venue or forum. In the event that these appeals should have been filed in the Court of the District Judge concerned, instead of in the High Court, a question of limitation is further involved because in that case the appeals were presented, more than thirty days after the judgment of the trial Court was delivered. We propose to decide both these points by this judgment.2. In order to appreciate the points which are raised before us, a few facts may be stated shortly.3. As to Appeal No. 55, the plaintiffs respondents filed their suit against the defendant appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,221 on the 29th May, 1953. The Senior Civil Judge Jalore decreed the suit by his judgment dated the 25th January, 1956. The defendant filed his present appeal in this Court on the 15th May, 1956, which came to be registered as Appeal No. 55 of 1956.4. As to Appeal No. 56 of 1956, the plaintiff appellant filed his suit...
Tag this Judgment!Rawat and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Raj343
Wanchoo, C. J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Rawat and 141 others against the State of Rajasthan, the Tehsildar of Phalodi, and Shri Vikramsingh and others in connection with proceedings under Section 4A of the Rajasthan Produce Rents Regulating (Second Amendment) Act (No. XXII) of 1953 (hereinafter called the Act).2. The case of the applicants was briefly this:The applicants are residents of village Bhaniyana in Tehsil Pokran, and are tenants of Shri Vikramsingh and other Jagirdars of Pokran. They say that they are liable to pay one-eighth share of the produce of Bajra, Moong, Mouth, Til and Juar as rent to the jagirdar, but that no share of the produce of Guar is payable by them.The share is determined by estimate or appraisement of the standing crop, which is known as Kunta in local parlane. They further say that they were prepared in the year 1953 to have the estimate or appraisement made according to the above share; but the jagirdars demanded ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. K.K. Wadhwani Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj138
K.L. Bapna, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner, Mrs. K.K. Wadhwani, holds a permit for a stage carriage operating on the Jaipur-Tonk route commencing from 5th September, 1955, to 4th September, 1958. On this route there is a bridge about 5 miles from Tonk City on the river Banas, which is known as Frazer Bridge.This was constructed in 1937 in the erstwhile State of Tonk. The State of Rajasthan, into which the former Tonk State has integrated, demands annas -/12/- for the passing or repassing of any public vehicle on that bridge. She had to pay Rs. 24/- for passing and re-passing the said bridge between the period of 28-9-1955, when she put her bus No. RJL 3705 on the road, and 15-12-1955, at the rate of 12 annas for each passing or repassing the bridge, according to the statement furnished by her,It is contended on her behalf that the said imposition of annas 12 is by way of tax, and is not authorised by law, and the State of Rajas...
Tag this Judgment!Maluram Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Raj340
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Maluram under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Briefly put the case of the applicant is that he was Sarpanch of Tehsil PanchayatLunkeransar. The Panchas of the Panchayat passed a motion of no-confidence against him on the 13th October, 1955. The applicant contend ed that this motion of no confidence was illegal in view of the provisions of Section 19 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, 1953, read with Section 58 (3) of the Act.According to the applicant, Section 19 requires that 3/4ths of the total number of Panchas have to concur before a vote of no-confidence is passed and this includes the Surpanch also as a Panch. In the present case the Tehsil Panchayat consisted of a Sarpanch and 8 Punches, i. e., the total number of Panchas was 9. 3/4ths of that is 63. Therefore, according to the applicant, at least 7 panchas should have voted in favour of the motion of no confidence. Actually only sis Panchas voted in this case in favour of the motion a...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Nanchi Vs. Daulat Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj265
K.K. Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the appellate judgment and decree of the District Judge, Ahvar dated 5-12-1951.2. The plaintiff came to the court with the allegation that she was the owner of a certain. Mohara situated in village Jhunaicha in the district of Alwar and that she was in possession of the said property upto 5-8-1942 when the defendant took-i'orcible possession of that property.3. The defendant-respondent admitted that the property in suit had formerly belonged to the plaintiff's husband Mamraj, but it was put to auction by the State for the realisation of a fine against Mamraj in the year 1924, and was purchased by the defendant's father and that since then he had been in possession of that property,4. The suit was instituted on 2-4-1947 in the court of Munsif, Behror for possession of the plaintiff and dispossession of the defendant.5. The learned Munsif framed the following issues:(1) Whether the defendant took forcible possession of the prop...
Tag this Judgment!Automobile Transport (Raj) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, Jaipu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj114
Wanchoo, C.J.1. Three writ applications were filed by the Automobile Transport (Raj) Ltd., (No. 400). The Rajasthan Roadways Ltd., (401), and Framji C, Framji and others (402), and in each of them the validity of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (No. XI) of 1951 was challenged. The three cases carat before a Division Bench of this Court which has referred the following question to a Full Bench --'Whether Sections 4 and 11 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951, do not infringe the rights of freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse granted under Article 301 of the Constitution?'2. The facts of the case may be briefly narrated in order to understand the point raised by the three applicants --The applicants carry on the business of plying stage carriages, and all three of them have their Head Offices in what was the former State of Ajmer. All three of them ply vehicles on Nasirabad-Deoli Road, while the Automobile Transport (Raj.) Ltd. also ply motor vehicles between...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Askaran
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj250
K.N. Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the Union of India against the decree of the District Judge, Bikaner, decreeing the suit brought by Askaran plaintiff-respondent against the Union of India, the State of Rajas-than, land Jadavlal Kapoor. The suit has been dismissed as against the State of Rajasthan andJadavlal Kapoor, and we are concerned only with the decree against the Union of India. 2. The case of the plaintiff was briefly this. He joined service in the Jodhpur Bikaner Railway as clerk on 1-8-1919. Later, on the separation o the Jodhpur-Bikaner Railway into two railways, the plaintiff remained in the service of the Bikaner Railway which was eventually taken over by the Union of India on 1-4-1950. In February 1950, the plaintiff was working as an Accountant in the Bikaner Railway in the Mechanical and Engineering Department. He was entitled to remain in service till he completed the age of 55 years on 14-12-1952; but as Shri Kapoor, who was then the General Manager of the B...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiyalal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj1
Dave J.1. This is an application by Kanhaiyalal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. It would be proper first to set out those facts which are not in dispute between the parties and they are as follows:--The petitioner was appointed as a clerk-cum-cashier in Tehsil Vallabhnagar, district Udaipur on 18th of February 1944. He was transferred to Tehsil Doongla as cashier on 12th April 1949 and later promoted to the post of accountant sometime in 1951. On 2nd April 1951, one Deepchand of Doongla filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Tehsildar Dcongla alleging that the petitioner had received from him, Rs. 204/12/-- in December 1949 or January 1950.This amount was given towards the payment oft 'Toji' which was a kind of 'lagan', but the petitioner, instead of depositing it in the treasury, kept it with himself and gave no receipt for that amount to the complainant. On receiving this complaint the Tehsildar Vallabhnagar made an enquiry and then submitted a report (...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »