Rajasthan Court March 1958 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.
Heerachand Vs. Jeevraj and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj1
K.N. Wanchoo, C.J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Full Bench by a learned Single Judge as it involves important questions of law. The learned Judge has framed the questions also, but finally referred the whole appeal to the Full Bench.2. The facts leading to this second appeal may be briefly narrated to understand the point involved. A suit was brought by Himmatmal and another against Jeevraj and another on the basis of a 'hundi' said to have been executed by Jeevraj in favour of Himmatmal on Migsar Sud 15 Samwat 1993 (equivalent to 1936 A.D.). The date on which the suit was filed is 4-1-1943.The case of the plaintiffs was that Jeevraj owed Rs. 450 to them for which he had executed this 'hundi'. But as the 'hundi' was dishonoured, the present suit was brought for Rs. 450 as principal and Rs. 300 as interest.3. The suit was resisted by Jeevraj defendant. He admitted the execution of the 'hundi', but his case was that Himmatmal wanted a loan from him. Jeevraj had no ready mone., He...
Bismillah Khan and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj21
D.S. Dave, J.1. Both the appeals noted above arise out of the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, dated 21-1-58 and therefore they are disposed of together.2. Appellants Bismillah Khan and Mst. Azizan have both been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge Udaipur under Section 366 I. P. C. but while Bismillah Khan has been sentenced to 5 years' R I and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, Mst. Azizan has been sentenced only to 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 50/-.3. The incident giving rise to this case took place in a locality called Tekri in Udaipur on the 18th of August, 1954.4. The prosecution case against the appellants is as follows :One Mst. Ram Pyari who was a widow of one Bahadur Singh was living at Tekri. It is said that her deceased husband was a Nepali who had several years back come to Mewar, joined the military service at Udaipur. Even after his death Mst. Ram Pyari who was also a Nepali woman continued to live there. She had two daughters, Kamla aged about 16 or 17 ye...
Lokchand Prithisingh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj231
K.L. Bapna, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of damages.2. The plaintiff Lokchand booked two items, one cycle and one trunk, from Ujjain to Kishangarh on 27-7-1947. When he reached Kishangarh on 29-7-1947, he got delivery of the cycle but not of the trunk. He entered into correspondence with the Traffic Manager, B. B. and C. I. Railway, and gave a notice under Section 77 of the Railways Act to the Traffic Manager, on 13-8-1947, and later on under S, 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on 16-3-1950, and as he did not receive any satisfaction, he instituted the present suit on 5-9-1950, for recovery of Rs 712-8-0 as value of the goods which were not delivered.3. On behalf of the Railway Administration the pleas taken were that the notice under Section 77 of the Railways Act was not valid, that the notice under Section 80, C. P. C. was not served, and that the suit was barred by limitation.4. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the alle...
Hira Lal Ganga Sahai Vs. Jagdish and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj254
K.L. Bapna, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money. 2. The plaintiff Hiralal and one Ram Chandra were vendees of a certain property sold by Kishanlal on 28-6-1938, for a sum of Rs. 1150/-. On the 9th of July, 1938, Jagdish instituted a suit on the allegation that he was the adopted son of Kishan Lal, and the property was ancestral property, and that the sale had been made without any legal necessity, nor for an antecedent debt. That suit had a chequered career, but the final decision oE the High Court of Alwar was given on 14-2-1941, that the property was ancestral, that Jagdish was the adopted son of Kishanlal. that there was no legal necessity for the sale, and that the debt, which could be called antecedent, was only a sum of Rs. 290/-. The High Court set aside the sale on the condition that Jagdish paid Rs. 290/- to the vendees before he obtained possession. Hiralal filed the present suit on 27-11-1945, on the allegation thathe had advanced h...
Mukan Kunwar Vs. Ajeetchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Raj322
ORDERJagat Narayan, J. 1. This revision application was filed as a civil miscellaneous first appeal purporting to be against an order of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, refusing to grant maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings to the applicant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It was treated as a revision on the application of the applicant since an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is not an appealable order. The application has been contested on behalf of the respondent.2. The facts giving rise to the present application are these. Smt. Mukan Kunwar applicant is the legally wedded wife of Ajeetchand, who filed a petition against her under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the annulment of their marriage on the ground that the wife was impotent at the time of marriage and continued to be so until the institution of the proceeding. The applicant filed an application under Section 24 for maintenance pendente l...
Bhagwandass Vs. Banshidhar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Raj286
ORDERJagat Narayan, J. 1. This is a defendant's revision application under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against ex parte decree passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Ratangarh.2. The first ground is that the learned Judge erred in proceeding with the suit ex parte and that the suit should be remanded so that the applicant may have an opportunity of cross examining the witnesses of the plaintiff and of adducing his own evidence. 17-11-1953, was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff. On 14-11-1953, an application for adjournment was made on behalf of the defendant. No order was passed on this application. On 17-11-1953, the defendant did not appear. The court proceeded ex parte against him. The evidence of the witnesses of the plaintiff was recorded on that very day and arguments were heard on 18-11-63. Judgment was pronounced on 28-11-53. It was open to the applicant to have applied for setting aside the ex parte decree. He did not avail of that remedy. I am n...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›