Rajasthan Court September 1958 Judgments
Balwant Singh and anr. Vs. Manak Mal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj91
Jagat Narayan, J.1. These are two connected appeals arising out of an execution proceeding. The facts which have given rise to them are these : Manak Mal respondent No. 1 obtained a simple money decree for Rs. 23,999/- on 8-5-1939 against Askaransingh and his yon Kansingh. This decree was put into execution several times and some amount was realised. Ultimately the decree-holder and the judgment-debtors entered into a compromise on 12-2-1944. A sum of Rs. 8,000/- was paid in cash and balance of Rs. 9,500/- remaining unrealised was ordered to be paid in 10 yearly instalments beginning from Chait Sud 15th, Smt. 2001. The first nine instalments were to be of Rs. 1,000/- each and the last instalment of Rs. 500/-. If the instalments were paid regularly on the due dates, then no interest was payable. But if there was any default in the payment of any instalment, then the decree-holder was entitled to recover interest on it at 6 per cent per annum simple. The last instalment was to be paid on...
Tag this Judgment!Mannalal and ors. Vs. Paneychand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj166
K.L. Bapna, Ag. C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order of the District Judge, Bikaner dated 27-2-1954 in suit No. 3 of 1952. 2. The allegations of the plaintiffs were that there was a firm Bijaisingh Chandkaran at Calcutta. The partners were (1) Mannalal, (2) Padamchand, (3) Motilal, (4) Mirzamal, (5) Champalal, all sons of Seth Takhatmal and (6) Dalchand, another son of Takhatmal who is defendant No. 4 in the case. It was alleged that there was a firm of the name of Pancychand Nahata at Champai, Nawabganj, district Malda (now in Pakistan) of which the partners were Paneychand defendant No. 1, Meghraj, defendant No. 2, Jesraj defendant No. 3 and Dalchand son of Takhatraal defendant No. 4. It was alleged that the firm Bijaisingh Chandkaran of Calcutta had dealings with firm Paneychand Nehata of Champai, Nawabganj as a result whereof a sum of Rs. 33, 574/-/6 remained due against the said firm payable to the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Nath Vs. Pahlad Narain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1961Raj154
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. This is a civil second appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of money which was decreed by both the courts below.2. The facts, which have been found by the lower appellate court, are these :Prahalad plaintiff is a dealer in lime which he used to supply Chandra Nath defendant from time to time. The defendant purchased lime from the plaintiff on different dates between 2-11-43 and 7-7-44. The total price of the lime so supplied was Rs. 3119/1/9. Payments were made by the defendant from time to time and in the beginning of November, 1946 a sum of Rs. 1284/4/- was due to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant made a payment of Rs. 200/- on 17-12-46. This payment bears his signatures and has been relied upon for saving limitation under Section 20. The present suit was instituted on 29-10-48.3. The case is admittedly governed by Article 52 of the Limitation Act being a suit for the price of goods sold and delivered where no fixed period of credit is agreed upo...
Tag this Judgment!Chauthmal Vs. Sardarmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj24
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for ejectment which was decreed by both the courts below.2. Sardarmal plaintiff No. 1, his son Harak-chand plaintiff No. 2 and his grandson Kajendralal plaintift No. 3 were the owners of a vacant plot of land which they leased to the defendant for a period of 5 years on an annual rent of Rs. 100/- with effect from 31-10-51. A registered qabuliat was executed by the defendant in their favour on 15-11-51, the relevant portion of which for purposes of this case runs as follows:'I have taken the land from you on rent for Rs. 100/- annually. I shall pay the rent from year to year. The term of the lease is 5 years. On the expiry of 5 years I shall vacate the premises when demanded by you. In the event of your wishing to construct on the land or to sell it I shall vacate it even before the expiry of the term of 5 years.'3. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 agreed to sell the above land on 13-2-55 to Shri Oswal Sang of Bali which is repres...
Tag this Judgment!Kundan Mal and ors. Vs. Thikana Siryari and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj146
K.K. Sharma, J. 1. This is an appeal against the appellate judgment and decree or the learned Civil Judge, Sojat in a suit for perpetual injunction and damages against the defendant-respondents. The plaintiff's suit was that certain plots had been let out by him to the defendants Nos. 2 to 7 and they were irrigated by a well known as 'Kirawa' on the outskirts of the village Siryari. The defendants executed a deed of release in favour of the plaintiff on Baisakh Sud 15th, Smt. 2005. In accordance with that release deed, he handed over possession of the plots and the well in dis-pute to the plaintiff. The defendants, however, sub-sequently interfered with the irrigation of the plots in dispute from the well in dispute. It was prayed that the defendants be restrained by a perpetual injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's irrigation o the field from the well in dispute and that Rs. 20/- be awarded by way of damages. This suit was filed in the Court of the Munsiff, Sojat on 31-5-19...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Chand Manroop Chand Vs. Firm Mool Chand Anraj and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj94
K.L. Bapna, Ag. C.J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant in a suit for rendition of accounts.2. The case of the plaintiff, whose representative in interest is now the respondent is that he entered into a partnership in one adventure with Manroop Chand, and that in that adventure the plaintiff and the said Manroop Chand had purchased 36 tins of ghee on Chait Budi 6, Sambat 1994, to be sold for profit. Some of these tins were sent by the plaintiff to Kanaji Kistoor Chand from Sirohi and 15 tins were sent by the defendants from Sirohi to Dhulaji Gomaji at Shivganj, while one tin was sold at Pindwara. The plaintiff alleged that the partnership continued till 8-7-44, and the suit was instituted on 8-7-47.3. Manroop had died, and his legal representative Dharam Chand denied the partnership, and raised a plea of limitation.4. The trial Court held the suit within time, also that the partnership had been proved, and that the goods had been sold, and accounts were to be made up. A prelimi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkumar Vs. the Bharat Electrical and Industrial Corporation Ltd., Al ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj85
K.L. Bapna, Ag. C. J. 1. This is a reference to a Division Bench made by a learned Single Judge. 2. An application was made for winding up of the Bharat Electrical and Industrial Corporation Ltd. Alwar, (hereinafter referred to as the Company). The Company had a paid-up share capital of Rs. 5,80,000/-. An application for winding up was made in the High Court on the 26th November, 1954. It was transferred to the court of the learned Districl: Judge, Alwar, who had been invested with powers under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, (hereinafter referred to as the old Act) by a notification of the Government. The District Judge of Alwar reported that as under the new Act of 1956, the jurisdiction in respect of the Companies was conferred only upon the High Court, that Court may be pleased to deal with thei case. The learned Judge before whom the reference came has referred the following question to the Division Bench:-- 'whether by virtue of Section 647 of the present Companies Act, the Distr...
Tag this Judgment!Jaswantsingh Vs. Issar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj88
D.M. Bhandari, J. 1. This is a civil first appeal by the plaintiff Jaswantsingh against the Judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Ganganagar dated 23-2-1955 in a suit for specific performance of contract or in the alternative for damages. 2. The case of the plaintiff appellant is that on 9-3-1954, the defendant-respondent agreed to sell his land Chak 7 KK in Tehsil Padampura measuring 20 bighas for Rs. 6,800/- and executed an agreement Ex. 1 after taking Rs. 500/- as earnest money. It was also provided in the agreement that if the defendant failed to sell the land, he shall pay Rs. 2,000- as damages: On the failure of the defendant to carry out the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff sued for specific performance of the agreement and in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. 2,000/- ss damages as also the earnest money. The defendant denied the case of the plaintiff. He pleaded that there was a talk of giving the disputed land on lease to the plaintiff tor Rs. 1,000/- per ...
Tag this Judgment!Samdukhan Vs. Madanlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj35
ORDERI.N. Modi, J.1. This is an application by Samdukhan appellant in S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 28 of 1958 praying that his recognised agent Mr. Hafi-zullah be permitted as a special case to plead before this Court, the main reason for the prayer being that the former is too poor to engage a counsel to argue his case.The application is an omnibus one and covers a similar request with respect to several other cases of the petitioner, which are not before me and to that extent it seems to me to be entirely misconceived. In deciding this application, therefore, I shall confine myself to the particular appeal which is before me.2. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned that the particular attorney with respect to whom the present application has been made is a revenue agent, and it is pointed out that he has been practising before all the revenue Courts in this State.I may, however, state at once that that is a matter governed by separate rules with which I am not concer...
Tag this Judgment!Harbans Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj105
ORDER1. This is an application for refund of court-fee under Section 13 of the Court-fees Act paid on the memorandum of appeal filed in this Court in Civil Appeal No. 28/1955 which was decided on 3rd February, 1958. The appeal was against thejudgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Ganganagar dated 3rd February, 1955 passed in Civil Suit No. 21 of 1952.2. The decree of the said Senior Civil Judge was set aside by this Court on a preliminary point, namely, that there was misconduct of the arbitrator and, therefore, the award made by him was not binding on any of the parties. The arbitration agreement was superseded and the case was remanded with the direction as to how further proceedings should be taken by the lower court. The judgment of the lower court proceeded on the basis that there was no misconduct of the Arbitrator and the award was binding on the parties.3. The case is directly covered by Section 13 of the Court-fees Act inasmuch as the decree of the trial Court proceede...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›