Rajasthan Court November 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.
Thakur Madhosingh Vs. Jagdambalal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj237
K.L. Bapna, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff. There is a Haveli in Jodhpur City known as Bhikamkore-ki-Haveli and at one time belonged to the Thakurs of Bhikamkore, Pali, Bhawad and Birloka jointly. One Sadasukh was in possession of the Haveli. On 18th April. 1950, he executed a will in which he described himself as the owner of this Haveli and purported to bequeath the same to Jagdambalal and Mangilal, who were his relations. Sadasukh died on 12th December, 1951. Jagdambalal and Mangilal filed an application before the District Judge for grant of probate of the will on 15th September, 1952. Jagdambalal and Mangilal also took steps to protect their possession by instituting proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. on 27th December, 1952 against certain persons who were partisans of the aforesaid Thakurs.2. Some time after these proceedings had been launched, the appellant Thakur Macthosing obtained sale deeds from the Thakurs of Bhikamkore, Pali, Bhawad and Birloka in his f...
Joharimal and ors. Vs. Fatehchand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj67
Chhangani, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal under Section 39(1)(v) of the Indian Arbitration Act (Act No. X of 1940) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order dated 9-3-1956 of the Senior Civil judge Chum, rejecting the application of the defendants under Section 34 of the Act.2. The plaintiff Fatehchand son of Champalal of Churu instituted a suit in the court of the Civil Judge, Chum on 1-3-1955 against defendant Joharimal and 10 others for recovery of Rs. 32,500/-: Rs. 27,780/11/6 as principal and Rs. 4,719/4/6 as interest. Chainrup and Sohanlal were impleaded as pro forma defendants Nos. 12 and 13. It is not necessary to set out the case of the plaintiff for the disposal of this appeal. The suit was registered on 2-3-1955 and 26-3-1955 was fixed for the settlement of issues. On this date, Shri Vishambhar Dayal and Shri Manoharlal, Advocates presented their Vakalatnama on behalf of Joharimal., defendant No. 1 and appeared for him.The other defendants could not be serv...
Redaram Vs. Bhoopram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj209
Dave, J. 1. This case has been referred to Full Bench for answering the following questions posed by learned Judges constituting a division bench: (1) Whether Devi Lal v. Tehsil Panchayat, Padampur, ILR (1958) 8 Raj 1119 has been correctly decided? (2) Assuming that the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, what should be the period of limitation, if any, governing such appeals against the executive or administrative orders of a village Panchayat? 2. Before discussing the points which arise for determination, it would be proper to set out briefly the facts which have given rise to this reference. 3. Petitioner Reda Ram presented an application to the Grain Panchayat, Satdidi (Tehsil Padampur district Ganganagar) for the purchase of plot No. 19 at 29 B. B. in Tehsil Padampur. Non-petitioner No. 1 Bhoopram also made an application for the same plot. The Gram Panchayat allowed the petitioner's application and allotted the said plot to him and rejected the non-petitioner's a...
Gyaniram and anr. Vs. Gulab Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Raj21
Chhangani, J. 1. This appeal by the defendants Laxminarainand Gyaniram has been directed against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge Jaipur, dated 12-8-1954 in a suit for damages for breach of contract, whereby he partially decreed the plaintiff Gulabchand's suit for an amount of Rs. 10,411/ 10-. The plaintiff has also filed cross-objections stating that his suit should have been decreed in toto and praying for increasing the amount of decree by Rs. 7,088/6/-.2. The case of the plaintiff briefly is that he has been carrying on trade in salt and gunny bags at Sambhar. The defendant Laxminarain and Gyaniram are members of a joint Hindu family of which Laxmi Narain is the Manager. The defendants' firm also carries on trade in salt and gunny bags. The trade in gunny bags in Sambhar is said to be subject to the trade usage according to which the transactions between the parties are to be adjusted and set off and delivery of the gunny bags is to be effected after such adjustmen...
Bakhtawarmal Vs. Brij Mohan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj236
K.L. Bapna, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant in a suit for injunction.2. In the bazar of Bhilwara there is a line of shops facing south. They were all covered by tiles so that the slope of the quarter of the shop was towards the north and the slope of the three fourth of the shop was towards the bazar on the south. There are buildings of third parties to the north of these shops. It appears that these shop-keepers made an arrangement for the discharge of the water of the northern slope in such a manner that a Nali, was constructed on the back portion of the shop above the first storey so that the water falling on the slope of the fourth part of each shop flowed on the back side in the Nali of each shop and water was carried from one Nali to another from west to east until it fell in a lane.The shop of the plaintiff is on the east and that of the defendant on the west side. The plaintiff instituted the present suit in the court of Munsif, Bhilwara on 1-7-47 and his plaint w...
Firm Ramnath Ramchander Vs. Firm Bhagatram and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj219
Chhangani, J. 1. This is a first appeal by the defendants against the decree dated 14th of August, 1951 for an amount of Rs. 9,500/3/- passed by the Civil Judge, Kishangarh against them and in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and the sole point for determination is whether the plaintiffs-respondents were rightly given by the trial court the benefit under section 14 of the Limitation Act to bring within time their suit which was admittedly presented beyond the prescribed period of Limitation. The relevant facts may very shortly be stated as follows:--The plaintiffs-respondents, a partnership firm deal in the purchase and sale of gold, silver and yarn and also carry on business as commission agents. The defendants who are the members of a joint Hindu family firm entered into various transactions of sale and purchase of gold, silver and yarn during period from Bhadva Vadi 12, samwat 2000 to Kartik Sudi 15, samwat 2000 through the agency of the plaintiffs' firm, alleging that as a resu...
Mt. Bashiran and ors. Vs. Nathu
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj255; 1960CriLJ1376
ORDERI.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a reference by the Additional District Magistrate, Jodhpur, in a matter under Section 488, Cr. P. C., and arises under the following1 circumstances. 2. Petitioner No. 1 Mst. Bashiran is allegedly the wife of the opposite party Nathu. The latter has had two children by Mst. Bashiran: (1) Mst. Banu a daughter aged about seven years and (2) Allahbux a boy about four years and a half, who are petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. On 17-7-1958, Mst. Bashiran, applied to the Extra First Class Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur City, that she and the opposite party Nathu had been married about 20 years ago but the latter had married another woman named Fatma about four years ago, and, therefore, she wanted to live separately from her husband. It was also alleged that the opposite party did not care at all for her or for her children, and, therefore, she claimed maintenance under Section 488 Cr. P. C. 3. The opposite party Nathu resisted this application. His case was that he had divo...
Ashoka Bus Transport Corporation, Bhilwara and ors. Vs. the Appellate ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj63
Bapna, J. 1. These three references arise out of three writ petitions, No. 144 of 1958 by Ashoka Bus Transport Corporation, Bhilwara, No. 145 of 1958 by Motor Workers Co-operative Society Ltd., Bundi, and No. 158 of 1958 by Korah Transport Ltd., Kotah, in which similar questions of law have arisen, and have been referred to this Full Bench.2. The facts, which have led to these writ petitions, are common to all of them. By a Notification of 21st March, 1957, published in the Rajpatra of 4-4-1957, the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, invited applications for various routes including the Kutah-Bundi-Chittorgarh route, mentioning the number of permits to be granted on this route to be 2. It was, however, mentioned in the notification that 'the Regional Transport Authority reserves the right to amend nr cancel the route or change the number of permits or vary the condition thereof on any route.' Various persons applied for permits on this route, and their applications were published i...
Daulat Ram and ors. Vs. Lakhu Mal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj66
Bapna, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for ejectment.2. Appellants Daulat Ram and his two sons Deo Raj and Madan Ram instituted a suit against Lakhu Mal and Sobhagmal for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment, on the allegation that the defendants had taken on rent the plaintiffs' three shops in the town of Barmer at a certain rent, but in proceedings relating to the fixation of standard rent the rent of two shops Nos. 9 & 10 was fixed at Rs. 20/- p.m. from 1-7-49 and that of shop No. 21 was fixed at Rs. 12/- p.m. from 1-9-49.It was alleged that the rent had fallen in arrears to the extent of 258/3/- and the defendants were not prepared to vacate the shops in spite of notice. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 258/3/- and also prayed that the defendants be ejected. The suit was instituted on 2-7-53.3. The defendants pleaded that they were ready and willing to pay rent and claimed certain deductions about the remittances which they alleged they had made. They also ...
Hansoo Vs. Suwalal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj215
Chhangani, J. 1. This is a defendant's revision in a money suit. The plaintiff suwalal Mahajan, resident of Nathdiyas brought a suit against the defendant Hausoo for the recovery of Rs. 1280/- in the Court of the Munsif, Gangapur. The suit is being contested by the defendant. During the pendency of the suit, on 24-7-1958 the defendant, claiming to be an agriculturist, put an application under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act No. 28 of 1957 (hereinafter referred to the Act) for staying proceedings and to enable him to file an application under Section 6 of the Act before a Debt Relief Court. The petition was opposed by the plaintiff. The Munsif held that the defendant was an agriculturist but he refused to stay suit on the ground that the Act cannot have retrospective effect and that the petitioner's case will have to be determined in accordance with the Mewar Agriculturist Relief Act, 1942. The petition was, therefore, held to be incompetent and was di...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »