Rajasthan Court February 1959 Judgments
Pratap Singh Vs. Madho Sunar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj196
ORDERD.S. Dave, J. 1. These are sixteen applications in revision by the same defendant against whom sixteen plaintiffs have brought separate suits for possession of agricultural lands in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Bhilwara. The facts of these cases are quite similar and since only one common question of law is involved in all of them, they are disposed of together. 2. Each one of the plaintiff non-petitioner has averred in his plaint that he was in possession of a particular plot of agricultural land in village Gadarmala (which is also known as Bhopalgarh) from the time of his ancestors. Each one has given a description of his field in dispute and it need not be mentioned here. It has been averred by all the plaintiffs that the defendant started making unlawful encroachment on their fields in the month of Kartik Samwat 2010 and ultimately in the month of Kartik Samwat 2011, he unlawfully ploughed their fields with a tractor. This led to a dispute between the plaintiffs and t...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Ramnath Ramachandra Vs. Firm Bhagatram and Co., Madanganj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj149
Dave, J. 1. This case comes on a reference made by learned Judges of a Division Bench of this Court in a first appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Kishangarh, dated the 14th of August, 1951 decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for Rs. 9,500/37- with future interest at 6 per cent and costs.2. The said reference is embodied in the following terms:'Whether advantage can be taken under Section 15 OB the Kishangarh State Limitation Act, corresponding to Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, of the pendency of a suit in the courts of the erstwhile territory of the Ajmer-Merwara, in subsequent suit in Kishangarh Court in view of the accession of Kishangarh State to the Dominion of India and thereafter its becoming a part of the Union of India, and specially the merger of the erstwhile State of Ajmer with Rajas-than under the States Reorganization Act, 1956?'3. In order to appreciate the full implication of the question raised before us, it would be ...
Tag this Judgment!Balya Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj278; 1959CriLJ1366
ORDERJ.S. Ranawat, J.1. This is a revision petition on behalf of Balya against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Jhalawar of 18-7-1958 confirming on appeal the judgment of the Magistrate First Class, Jhalawar, convicting him under Section 379 read with, Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- or in default three months further rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly put, the prosecution case was that on 16-5-1957 at about 7 or 8 a. m. Harisingh, while he was purchasing a ticket for going to his village in a bus, saw a hundred rupee note falling down from his pocket in two parts. He picked up me pieces of the currency note and felt his pocket in which he had put currency notes of the valuable of Rs. 1,000/-. To his surprise, he found his pocket cut underneath, with theresult that all his money was found missing. He raised a hue and cry and the accused was instantly caught by Kalian, a bystander. The accus...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Umrao Kanwar and anr. Vs. Mst. Ram Pyari and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj235
D.S. Dave, J.1. Both these cross-appeals arise out of the same suit and therefore they are disposed of together.2. The case between the parties is a small one but it has a long history extending over more than 10 years. The suit was originally instituted on 17-7-1948 by Suraj Karan, father of Mst. Umrao Kanwar and Sardar Kanwar, who are appellants in appeal No. 214/1953. The original defendants were Ganga Bux and his son Mohanlal. Gangabux died during the pendency of the suit in the trial Court and therefore the only contesting defendant left there was Mohanlal. He has also died since then and his widow Mst. Ram Pyari and his two daughters Mst. Gulab and Mst. Gopali are respondents in appeal No. 214/1953 and appellants in appeal No. 226/1953. There were three other pro forma defendants, viz. Manak Chand, Moti Ram and Pooran Chand. Manakchand is also dead and his name has been struck off by order of the Court dated 1-9-1955 in appeal No. 214/53. The other two defendants Motiram and Poor...
Tag this Judgment!General Motor Bus Service, Jaipur Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Ja ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Raj129
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Messrs. General Motor Bus Service, Jaipur, against the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority, Rajas than,2. The facts, which have given rise to this petition, are these. The petitioner applied for grant of four temporary permits for plying stage carriages between Jaipur and Kotah on 25th November, 1954, and for grant of four non-temporary permits on the same route on 3rd December, 1954. It may be mentioned that there is no direct service between, Kotah and Jaipur so far. Buses ply between Kotah and Deoli and Deoli and Jaipur.The R. T. A. did not publish the applications for grant of non-temporary permits on account of a direction issued by the S. T. A by its resolution dated 24th January, 1955, asking the R. T. A. to open the Jaipur-Kotah route, on a temporary basis to assess the traffic potentiality. It authorised the. R. T. A, to issue two temporary permits along the route. The R....
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Abdul Majid and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj131; 1959CriLJ772
D.S. Dave, J. 1. The facts out of which the above noted three appeals have arisen are similar and since a common question of law is involved in all of them, they are disposed of together.2. The allegation against all the accused was that they are nationals of Pakistan. It was alleged against accused Abdul Majid that he came from Pakistan to Tonk with a Passport No. 249526 and Visa No. 6932. He arrived in India on 14-3-1950. According to the original terms of his Visa and Passport, he should have returned to Pakistan earlier, but since he got the period of stay extended up to 31-1-1957, he ought to have left this country on that date.3. Against the second accused Mohd. Yusuf, it was similarly alleged that he came from Pakistan to Tonk with a Pass-port No. 090124 and Visa No. 62962. He arrived in India on 4-10-1956. According to the terms of his Visa and Pass-port, he should have left this country on 3-2-1957, but he did not do so.4. Similarly, it was alleged against accused Mohd. Rafiq ...
Tag this Judgment!Chistopher Andrew Neelakantan Vs. Mrs. Anne Neelakantan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj133
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a miscellaneous first appeal against an order of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, dated the 2nd December, 1958, under Section 39 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, (No. XLIII of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a divorce matter.2. The petitioner is the husband Chistopher Andrew Neelakantan. His case is that he is a citizen of India and is an officer in the Air Force of the Government of India, and has been holding the post of Wing Commander in the Air Force at Jodhpur for the past several years. It is further alleged that the petitioner and the respondent Mrs. Anne Neela-kantan were married in England on the 20th Febru-ary, 1955, and a copy of the certificate of marriage (Annexure I) is produced in support of this.Among other allegations, which it is unnecessary to mention at this stage, the petitioner's case further was that when he wanted the respondent to come over to India and live ...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Gulzarimal Gheesalal Vs. Firm Rameshchandra Radhyeshyam
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj162
I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendant firm Gulzarimal Gbeesalal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Kishengarh, in a suit for recovery of damages. 2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff firm Ramchandra Radheshyam on the allegations that it did business as commission agent at Madanganj, and that the defendant was a joint Hindu family firm, of which Gheesalal was the manager, and that the said firm did business in the name of Gulzarimal Gheesalal at Nasirabad. It is admitted that there were dealings between these two firms. It is unnecessary to give particulars of the dealings between the parties in any detail, because the only dispute between them, so far as the present litigation is concerned, centers round the transaction relating to purchase and sale of 200 maimds of Gur. The case of the plaintiff was that it had purchased for the defendant 200 maunds of Gur on 29-1-1949, for a sum of Rs. 3350/- at the rate of Rs. 16/12/...
Tag this Judgment!Khilumal Topandas Vs. Arjundas Tulsidas
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj280
Bhandari, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 166A of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter called the Act) by Shri Khilumal Topandas whose electionpetition has been dimissed by the election Tribunal, Ajmer- on the 10th of September, 1967. The petitionrelates to the Ajmer Cily west Constituency of the Rajasthan Assembly. The insult of the election was declared on the 9th of March, 1957 and Shri Arjundas Tulsidas respondent was declared elected. The appellant is an elector in that constituency. He presented an election petition before the Election Commission.The trial of the petition took place before Shri Kishan Lul Dhabai, Member of the Election Tribunal, Ajmer, The election was challenged on various grounds but in this appeal the learned counsel for the appellant frankly conceded that he confined his case to the corrupt practices which fell within the definition of Sub-sections 3 and 4 of Section 123 of the Act. In that elcction Dr. Pohumal was the candidate on behalf o...
Tag this Judgment!Hazari Lal Vs. Hari Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj153a
K.K. Sharma, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Baran, dated 18-5-1953.2. The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit in the court of the Munsif, Baran out of which this appeal has arisen against the defendant-respondent for the recovery of Rs. 1,596-6-6 on 11-2-1952. According to the plaint, the defendant-respondent appointed the plaintiff-appellant his aratia and purchased 200 tins of ghee, weighing 95 Mds-39 Srs.-7 Chhs., through the plaintiff's arat, on Kartik Sudi 5, Sambat 2005, corresponding to 6-11-1948, for which the plaintiff had to spend Rs. 13,529-7-0 on behalf of the defendant. This ghee was despatched to Deogarh Madaria in November 1948, through Tulsi Ram, the agent of the defendant.Again, according to the instructions of' the said Tulsi Ram, 200 tins more of ghee were purchased for the defendant by the plaintiff on Magsar Badi 10, Sambat 2005, corresponding to the 26-11-1948, which weighed 89 M...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »