Rajasthan Court October 1959 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.
Munshi Ram and ors. Vs. Hukam Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj235
K.L. Bapna, J.1. This is a revision against an order of the learned Judge of the Tribunal in proceedings under Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951, (No. LXX of 1951)2. The petitioner Munshi Ram and certain other persons filed a claim for the recovery of Rs. 4,373/2/6 against Hukam Singh and another before the Tribunal at Ganganagar. This was dealt with by the Presiding Officer of the Court of Civil Judge, Suratgarh, who was appointed Tribunal for the purposes of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act. The learned Judge of the Tribunal dismissed the claim by order of 14th December, 1954, The petitioner Munshi Ram and others have come in revision.3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that no proper issues were framed, and that a comparison of the account books of both the parties in the suit showed that while all the debit and credit items entered into the books of the petitioners were so entered in the account books of the respondents,...
Mst. Mohari Vs. Mst. Chukli and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj82
Modi, J. 1. This case has been placed before us as the result of a reference by a learned single Judge as it involves the determination of an interesting, question of law relating to the right of a widow in a joint Hindu family, her husband having died before the Jaipur Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1947 (No. 38 of 1947), which was the counter-part of the Indian Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 (No. XVIII of 1937), had come into force. 2. The facts relating to this appeal may be conveniently stated with reference to the following pedigree table: GIRDHARILAL (died somewhere near 1926 A. D.) | Widow Mst. Dakhli (Deft.2) _______________|___________________ | | | Gordhan Kishenlal Gulabchand (died without | | leaving any Widow Mst. Widow Mst. Widow or issue) Mohari Chukli (Plaintiff) Deft.1) It is admitted that Kishanlal, husband of the plaintiff Mst. Mohari, died some time in 1945 A.D. leaving behind him his widow and his brother Gulabchand and his mother Mst. Dakh...
Sohan Lal Vs. Poonam Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Raj32
K.L. Bapna, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Civil Judge of Ratangarh dated 23rd of March, 1955 refusing to set aside the, ex parte decree. 2. Poonamchand of Ladnu instituted a suit against Sohanlal, his two minor sons Ratanlal and Champalal, under guardianship of Sohanlal of Doon-gargarh and one Nanuram. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 5,000/- for principal and Rs. 500/- for interest on the allegation that the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 obtained a loan of Bs. 5,000/- through their Munim, defendant No. 4 Nanuram and executed a Hundi payable at sight dated 24th of November, 1954 and the said Hundi was executed by defendant No. 4, their Munim on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 to 3. It was then alleged that the amount of the Hundi was not paid when presented. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were stated to be liable on the Hundi, but it was also pleaded that in case defendants Nos. 1 to 3 may raise any objection as to the authority of defendant No. 4, the said defendant No. 4 w...
Moti and anr. Vs. Lachhman
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj122
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants in, a suit for declaration and partition.2. Lachhman plaintiff alleged that he was adopted by Moti defendant No. 1 in Section 1995, that Moda defendant No. 2 who is the natural son of Moti was born after his adoption, and that after the birth of Moda his father turned him' out from his house. He accordingly brought the present suit for a declaration that he was the adopted son of Moti and for possession over half the property of Moti on partition. The trial court found that Lachhman was the adopted son of Moti and was entitled to one-fourth share in Moti's property after his death. It held that ha was not entitled to get the partition effected in Moti's life-time. The suit of Lachhman was accordingly decreed only in respect of the declaration that he was the adopted son of Moti. Both parties preferred appeals against this decision. The ower appellate court held that Lachhman was the adopted son of Moti and Was entitled to ge...
Mst. Asa Bai Vs. Prabhulal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj304
Modi, J.1. This is a regular first appeal by the plaintiff Mst. Asa Bai against the judgment of the learned District Judge, dated 12-7-I951, dismissing the plaintiffs suit for; possession of certain immovable property. The following pedigree table will be found helpful in understanding the contentions between the parties: RAJMAL (Died on 29-12-1917) __________|_______________ | | Panna Kanwar Bai Mst. Jarao Kanwar (First wife (Second wife) __________|__________ Died on 4-1-1928) | | | Mst. Chandan Bai Mst. Asa bai _________|__________ (Dead) (Plaitiff) | | Chandkanwar Pabhu Lal (Died on 14-8-28) (alleged to | be adopted Kapoorchand deft.1) | Khalrati Lal alias Dharamchand (deft.2)The dispute between the parties relates to a house situate in Pitaliyan Chowkri Visheshwarji in the city of Jaipur, the boundaries of which have been described at the foot of the plaint.2. The case of the plaintiff Mst. Asa Bai, daughter or Rajmal, according to the amended plaint, is that Rajmal was surv...
Assoomal Vs. Tekumal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-06-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Raj29
ORDERK.L. Bapna, J. 1. This is a revision against an order of the learned City Munsif, Ajmer dated 30-6-1959.2. Assumal was the defendant in a certain suit for recovery of money instituted by Tekumal and Pessumal. Learned counsel states that thenumber of the suit was 165/1959. On a certain date, Mr. Prabhudayal Bhargava Pleader appeared for the defendant with the petition of compromise with the plaintiff and the suit was decreed in the terms of the compromise on 14-3-59. On 3-4-1959, Assumal made an application for setting aside the decree invoking provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 and section 151 C. P. C. on the allegation that he had never engaged Mr. Prabhudayal Bhargava and that he had no authority to enter into the compromise. It was alleged that Assumal never agreed to engage Mr. Prabhudayal Bhargava. It was mentioned that he had engaged Shri Durga Prasad in some other case in a different court and had signed on the Vankalatnama for that purpose and the said signed Vakalatnama of Ass...
Anandi Lal Vs. Onkar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-06-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj251
D.S. Dave, J.1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for partition and possession of immovable property situated at Jaipur in a locality which SS called Chowkri Ghat Darwaza, Rasta Bhaironji Kundigaran, Gali Naiyan.2. The plaintiff's case was that the houses whose description has been given in the plaint, belonged to his father Manak. About 45 years prior to the date of the institution of the suit (which was filed on 30.10.48 in the court of Civil Judge, Jaipur City), his father had adopted the defendant as his son, because he had no natural son of his own by that time from his first wife. After the death of his first wife, he married another wife, who gave birth to the plaintiff. A few years after, the plaintiff's father got angry with the defendant on account of some undesirable activities on his part and so he turned him out of his house.The defendant then began residing in another house. The plaintiff's father died on 15-6-37 'and after his demise, the defendant took f...
Abdul Gani and anr. Vs. Devi Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj77
L.N. Chhangani, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 Clause (u) C. P. C. against an appellate order of the District Judge, Jodhpur dated 30th September, 1958 reversing the decree of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur dismissing the plaintiff-appellants' suit an a finding on one issue, and remanding the case for fresh decision after determining various other points arising in the suit. The material facts necessary for the decision of this appeal may be briefly given as follows :2. On 5th August, 1949 the defendant-appellant No. 1 Abdul Gani borrowed Rs. 2500/- from the plaintiff-respondents Devilal and Radhe Shyam and created a usufructuary mortgage of a house and transferred the possession of the house to the plaintiff-respondents. On the same day he took on lease the house from them and executed a rent-note in their favour on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor son Mohmad Saffi.3. Alleging that the defendant-appellant did not pay any rent after the execution of the re...
Jaipur Spinning and Weaving Mills, Ltd. Vs. Jaipur Spinning and Weavin ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-1959
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ656Raj
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. The petitioner is the Jaipur Spinning and Weaving Mills, Ltd., Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'company'; represented by Sri V.N. Soral, secretary, and the respondents are the Jaipur Spinning and Weaving Mills, Ltd., Mazdoor Union, Jaipur, represented by its President, Sri Ainshilal and the Judge of the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan. The petition invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and prays that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order of injunction against the respondents and quash the interim award of the industrial tribunal dated 23 July 1958 so far as it decided about the question of wages to be paid to the siders working double sides in the ringframe department of the company.2. The relevant facts of the case are as follows.That, in the ringframe department of the company before 24 March 1958 only single si...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›