Rajasthan Court May 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.
Dariya Vs. Suba and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Raj50; 1959CriLJ236
ORDERK.L. Bapna, J. 1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur by order of 15th February, 1957. 2. Dariya made an application to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dholpur on 27th June, 1956 that he with his nephew Sukha was in possession of Raimjawala land in village Gunpur Tahsil Rajakhara for a number of years but there was interference by Suba and Bhagwansingh non-petitioners. The dispute first arose about that land in 1954 which led to an institution of the suit by the petitioner. The petitioner was successful. A pan-chayat was also held in respect of that land, and the Panchas on 8th June, 1954 also decided the possession in favour of the petitioner. It was alleged that the non-petitioners were however, bent upon taking possession of the land and committing breach of the peace. Re has, therefore, prayed that proceedings be taken under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code for declaring his possession and for prohibiting the non-petitioners n...
Panchoo Singh Vs. Bala Sahai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj306
ORDERK.L. Bapna, J. 1. This is a revision under section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (No XXXVIII of 1952). 2. The respondent Bala Sahai instituted a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The allegation was that he required the house bona fide for his own use. A notice was given to the defendant to vacate, but he did not do so. The plea of the defendant, as is evident from a perusal of the judgment of the lower court was that the plaintiff did not require the house bona fide for his own use, and the notice was bad in law. In respect of the claim for arrears of rent, a counter claim for adjustment of a certain sum spent by the defendant on repairs was made. The defence was struck off because of the non-compliance of the order given by the court under section 13(5) of the Act. Thereafter the trial court held that the plaintiff bona fide required the premises for his own use, and the notice was valid. The plaintiff's claim for ejectment was decreed and arrears were al...
Jethmal Vs. Heeralal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj48; 1958CriLJ219
Bapna, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 432 Cr. P. C. The allegations on behalf of the Municipal Board Ladnun, acting through its chairman Shri Jethmal Sharma are that Shri Heeralal Sravagi imported a motor car No. RJQ 2304 near about 10-4-1956, but did not pay the octroi duty imposed on the import of the car under the rules and bye-laws of the Municipal Board. It was said that he was asked more than once to pay the tax, but as he failed to do so, a complaint was lodged under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951 (Act No. XXIII of 1951). On behalf of Shri Heeralal, an objection was raised that the imposition of octroi duty for import or the car was not authorised by law. 2. Under Section 59 of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951 (Act No. XXIII of 1951, a municipal board is authorised under Sub-section (b) (ii) to impose a tax on all or any vehicles or animals, used for riding, draught or burden, kept within the said municipality for ^use, and under Cl...
Thakur Jaikrit Singh and ors. Vs. Sohan Raj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Raj63; 1959CriLJ379
ORDERD.S. Dave, J.1. This reference has been made by the District Magistrate, Jodhpur, for setting aside an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Jodhpur, on 6-4-1957 in Criminal Original Case No, 1 of 1954 in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The dispute between the parties relates toBunglow No. 17 which is situated in the precincts of Ratanada Palace at Jodhpur. It is commonground between the parties that the said bungalow elonged to the Late His Highness Maharaja Hanwant Singhji, the then Ruler of Jodhpur State till 13-1-1948 when he was blessed with a son who has succeeded to his properties. One Mr. G. H. Godwin was officer-in-charge of the 'State Aviation' and the said bungalow was given to him for his residence,Even after the merger of the former State of Jodhpur in the State of Rajasthan, Mr. Godwin continued to remain in the personal service of the Late His Highness Maharaja Hanwant Singhji. Maharaja Hanwant Singhji expired on 26-1...
Chandkanwar and ors. Vs. Rambhajan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Raj329
Bapna, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Senior Civil Judge vacating an injunction.2. It is alleged that Rambhajan and Amarchand respondents obtained a decree for recovery of Rs. 4,920-14-0 against certain persons not named in the memorandum of appeal and who have not been made parties to this appeal. The appellants claim a certain share in the property sought to be sold on the ground that it was ancestral property and the debts for which the decree was obtained were neither for legal necessity nor for paying any antecedent debts. It does not appear from this memorandum whether the judgment-debtor is the father or what relation of the appellants. The appellants claim 4/10th share in the mortgaged house.The appellants who were plaintiffs prayed for injunction restraining the mortgagee from putting up the property to sale in execution of the decree. The learned Civil Judge granted an injunction subject to the condition that the plaintiffs took upon themselves the res...
Custodian Evacuee Property Rajasthan Vs. Dr. Mohd. Saeed
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj93
Bapna, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 27(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (Act No. XXXI of 1950), 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) by the Deputy Custodian General under his order dated 28-4-1956.2. The facts of the case are simple and not disputed.3. Proceedings under Section 19 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance of 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Ordinance) had been initiated against the respondent Dr. Mohd. Saeed of Jaipur, and by an order of 1-4-1950 he was declared to be an intending evacuee by the Deputy Custodian, Jaipur. By the same order it was directed that notice be issued to the respondent to show cause as to why he be not declared to be an evacuee under Ss, 2(d)(i) and 2(d)(iii) of the Act and as to why his property be not declared to be evacuee property under Section 22(b) of the Act.4. The ground for the issue of notice under Section 22(b) of the Act was that he had remitted to Pakistan a sum of Rs. 84,70...
Jagannath Vs. Kundan Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj144
J.S. Ranawat, J.1. This case has come before us on the report of the Stamp Reporter.2. Jagarmath, who was defendant in the lower court, has filed an appeal in this court on 1-8-1956, against the judgment and preliminary decree under Order 20, Rule 15 C. P. C. of the District Judge, Jaipur District, dated 6-6-56, for dissolution cf the partnership business with effect from Kartik Budi Amavas Smt. Year 2010 fixing the share of the plaintiffs at 9 annas in a rupee and that of the defendant, Rudmal, at 7 annas in a rupee and also directing the accounts of the partnership to be taken. The defendant-appellant valued his memorandum of appeal at Rs. 500/- and paid a fixed fee of Rs. 37/8/- on it. The plaintiffs in the lower court paid an amount of Rs. 1225/- as court-fee on their suit. The Stamp Reporter has noted in his report that the defendant-appellant was bound by the valuation put by the plaintiffs in the suit and was liable to pay court-fee on it. According to him the court-fee paid by ...
Birdichand and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj26
Wanchoo, C.J.1. These are six connected applications challenging the validity of Part IV of the Marwar Relief of Indebtedness Act of 1941 (hereinafter called the Act) dealing with Debt Conciliation Boards. We propose to decide these cases by one judgment as the main arguments raised in them are the same.2. Before we mention the grounds on which the validity of the provisions of Part IV of the Act is being attacked, we would like briefly to mention the facts of these six cases.3. In Birdichand's case (No. 46 of 1955), the Debt Conciliation Board has acted under Section 13 (2) of the Act, and discharged the debt.4. In Civil Writs No. 121 of 1955, No. 158 of 1955, No. 36 of 1956, and 74 of 1956 proceedings are going on the application of the debtors under Section 11 of the Act.5. In Civil Writ No. 41 of 1956 also proceedings are going on the application of the debtor under Section 11 of the Act, but in this case besides certain sums due on Bahee Khatas, some amount due on a decree of a Co...
Mangilal Vs. Sitaram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Raj339; 1957CriLJ1314
ORDERDave, J.(1) This is an application in revision by Mangilal applicant against the order of the District Magistrate, Jodhpur, dated the 16th of October 1956 dismissing his appeal on the ground of limitation.(2) The facts giving rise to it are that the petitioner had filed an application in the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Jodhpur, under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 for restoration of electric connection which was said to have been cut off by the other party. This application having been dismissed on 8th June 1956, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Magistrate, Jodhpur. The appeal was filed on 14th of July 1956.The appellant sought to exclude the period between 14th June 1956 when he bad presented an application for copy of the Magistrate's order and 7th of July 1956 when the copy was actually delivered to him. If this period were excluded, the appeal would have been perfectly within time. This position ...
Smt. Jora Vs. Prabhu Narain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj310
ORDERK.L. Bapna, J. 1. This is a revision against the decision of the Judge, Small Cause Court Jaipur City, dated 20th December, 1956.2. The respondent had sued the petitioner on a bond dated 1st January, 1953. The defendant denied the execution or the consideration. The court, on evidence, found for the plaintiff and decreed the suit.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the suit was beyond limitation, if the limitation was taken to have started from the date of the bond. The judgment mentioned that the stipulation of repayment was that the debtor would repay the loan in 12 months. If the limitation were to be reckoned from 1-1-1954, it was conceded that it was within time. Learned counsel urged that in a case of stipulation of that nature, the time runs from the date of the bond, and relied on Shiva Narain v. Badal, AIR 1936 Oudh 279 (A).4. The relevant Article is 66 of the Limitation Act, which runs as follows :Description of suitPeriod of limitationTimefrom which pe-riod...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›