Rajasthan Court August 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.
Ramlal and anr. Vs. Hariram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj95
D.M. Bhandari, J.1. This is a civil second appeal by the plaintiffs who filed a suit for possession of a piece of agricultural land Khasra No. 1406 measuring 11 Bighas 17 Biswas situated in village Godala in the Court of the Sub Divisional Officer, Nimbahera on 6-2-1950. The plaintiff-appellants alleged that they were the owners of the above mentioned agricultural land and that they had been forcibly dispossessed by the defendant-respondent about a year back. The defendant also cut the crop sown by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had filed a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act but were directed to file a regular suit for possession. The defendant denied the case of the plaintiffs. They also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiffs had previously filed a suit for the recovery of Rs 500/- as compensation for wrongly cutting the crop, but bad omitted to claim possession of the disputed land and as such they were barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Proc...
Roopchand Vs. Mithalal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj17
I.N. Modi, J. 1. In this plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for possession, the only question for determination before me at this stage is whether the plaintiff's appeal in the court below abated entirelyand not merely in part, that is against one of the defendant respondents Bherunlal as held by the lower appellate court. 2. It is necessary to set out a few facts to appreciate the point in controversy. The plaintiff as sub-mortgagee brought the suit, out of which this appeal arises, against two persons, namely, Bherunlal and his son Mithalal for recovery of possession of certain immovable property on the allegation that they had taken unlawful possession thereof and had refused to return it when demanded. The plaintiff also impleaded the original mortgagees as defendants in this suit and these persons admitted the plaintiff's claim though their names were subsequently ordered to be removed from the array of parties for reasons into which it is not necessary to enter. The other defend...
Kesrichand and ors. Vs. Chananmal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-13-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj58
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit for injunction was dismissed by both the courts below. 2. The houses of the plaintiffs and the houses of the defendants are situated close to one another. At the back of the houses of the plaintiffs there is an enclosure belonging to them. It is not connected with their houses directly although it lies adjacent to them. The case of the plaintiffs was that they used to go to this enclosure across the land belonging to the defendants, They claimed that they had an easement right of way across the land of the defendants which had been perfected. They also claimed that they had a similar easement right of way for going to Hanumanji's temple across the land of the defendants. Part of the land over which the easement right of way was claimed for going to the enclosure formerly belonged to the State. A patta of it was granted to one of the defendants, on 9-1-43. The present suit was instituted in 1947. The defendants de...
Bhanwarlal Vs. Gulabchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj96
D.M. Bhandari, J. 1. This is a civil second appeal on behalf of Bhanwarlal against whom Gulabchand plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,486-5-9 in the Court of the Munsif, Phalodi. The suit is based on a promissory note Ex. P-1 dated 9-5-1949 executed at Phalodi for Rs. 1,260/-. The front portion of Ex. P-l is a promissory note signed by the defendant. On the back portion are four stamps of 0-1-0 each of the then Jodhpur State cancelled by the alleged signature of the defendant. Below that there is the attestation by one witness Ramchandar. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant borrowed the amount of Rs. 1,260/- and executed Ex. P-l. The defendant denied the case of the plaintiff in toto. He denied to have borrowed the amount of Rs. 1,260/-and to have executed the document Ex. P-1. Both the lower Courts have decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the defendant had borrowed the amount of Rs. 1,260/- from the plaintiff and had executed the front portio...
Surajmal and ors. Vs. Doongarmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj27
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a first appeal by the defendants Suraj-mal and others against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge Merta dated 26-10-1953, by which he decreed the plaintiff's suit with costs and future interest.2. The facts leading up to this appeal may shortly be stated as follows. The plaintiffs Doon-garmal, Chunnilal and Vasudep, and defendants Nos. 4 to 7 Laxminarain, Lalchand, Bhanwarilal and Madanlal carried on business as commission agents for the sale and purchase of cotton at Gulab-pura and Bhilwara under the name and style of Chunnilal Chandanmal.According to the plaintiffs defendant No. 1 Surajmal and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 Shankerlal and Malchand, who are his sons, constituted a joint Hindu family, and carried on business in two names: the one being Surajmal Shanker Lal and the other Malchand Somani, and both Surajmal and Shanker-lal carried on business of the joint Hindu family firm though Surajmal was the Karta of the joint Hindu family. Malchand was stated...
Naru Vs. Mt. Noji and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj53
ORDERK.N. Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Naru and arises in the following circumstances : Naru filed a suit against his adoptive mother and three sets of defendants. So far as the first two sets of defendants were concerned, he prayed for possession of certain properties which had been alienated by his adoptive mother. So far as the third set of defendants Nos. 6, 7 and 8 was concerned, he prayed for possession of house said to have been sold to these three defendants. The case of these three defendants, however, was that the house in question belonged to them and had been mortgaged by their ancestors to the ancestors of the plaintiff and all that these defendants had done was to redeem the house. 2. The suit went on against the three sets of defendants and when it was about to come to an end, an application was made on 21-5-1954 by the plaintiff for permission to withdraw the suit against defendants Nos. 6, 7 and 8 with liberty ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›