Rajasthan Court February 1959 Judgments
Lachhman Vs. Pyarchand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj169
I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a regular first appeal by the plaintiff Lachhman in a suit for damages for defamation, which has been dismissed by the trial Court. 2. The material facts, out of which this appeal arises, lie in a short compass and may be briefly stated as follows. The parties belong to a village named Kurawad, District Udaipur. The plaintiff is a Panch of the Gram Panchayat Kura-wad. The respondents are 28 in number and of these about half the number are Mahajans and the rest belong to various other communities. The plaintiff's case was that on 18-3-1952, the defendant made a report (Ex. P.1) to the Station House Officer, police thana Kurawad, which translated in English reads as follows : 'It is prayed that the undermentioned 'Goondas' are misbehaving and harassing us (the applicants). On Chait Vadi 3rd and 5th they formed themselves into an assemblage of a number of persons of which they were the leaders and they have treated us very shabbily information whereof has been giv...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Keshrichand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj148; 1959CriLJ908
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Keshri Chand respondent of a charge under Section 394, I. P. C.2. The prosecution case was that the father of one Surjia had borrowed Rs. 100/- from Keshri Chand, which ho was not paying back, and in order to coerce him to pay off the debt Keshri Chand seized a camel belonging to the debtor from the possession of his son Surjia after giving him two slaps. The defence of Keshri Chand was that he had entered into an agreement with his debtor for the purchase of the camel, and had taken it with his consent in pursuance of that agreement.The learned Magistrate did not believe that Keshri Chand slapped Surjia, as this allegation was not supported by one of the prosecution witnesses, Narain. He did not expressly say whether he disbelieved the defence allegation, but from his judgment it appears that he was satisfied that the camel was seized by Keshri Chand from the possession of Surjia in order to compel repayment ...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Magi and ors. Vs. Babulal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj135
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This execution second appeal has been referred to this Bench by a learned Single Judge. The facts leading to it are briefly these. Mangilal and Tri-bhuwanlal obtained a money decree for Rs. 630/-against Sadu Ram. In execution of this decree a shop belonging to the judgment-debtor was attached and was sold at a court sale held on 5th, 6th and 7th January 1954. The highest bid was of Babu Lal which was accepted by the executing court on 9-1-1954.One-fourth of the purchase money was however deposited on 21-1-1954 and the balance on 15-2-1954. The sale was confirmed on 15-5-1954 and sale certificate was issued on 31-8-1954. Before possession was delivered an objection was filed by the wife and sons of the judgment-debtor on 8-10-1954. Objections of the nature contemplated in Rules 72, 73, 84 and 85 of Order 21 were taken by them. The judgment-debtor himself did not come forward to raise any objection at that stage. These objections were dismissed on 26-8-54. On 13-1-56 ...
Tag this Judgment!Misra and ors. Vs. Rajasthan Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj290
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution by 28 persons against an order of the Board of Revenue dated 9-5-J958, confirming an order of the Additional Commissioner dated 25-3-1957.2. The facts, which have given rise to this application, are these : The petitioners brought a suit for declaration of their Khatedari rights against Virendra Singh, respondent No. 3, which was decreed. Against that decree Virendra Singh preferred an appeal in the Court of the Additional Commissioner. 20-2-1957 was fixed for hearing the appeal. On that date Virendra Singh and his counsel were absent. The appeal was accordingly dismissed for default. On 23-3-1957, Shri Sardar Nath Modi, who was appearing for Virendra Singh, applied for setting aside the ex parte order dismissing the appeal. The office reported on this application that it was filed beyond limitation.The learned Additional Commissioner, how ever, restored it without giving any reason as to why he t...
Tag this Judgment!Bugal Prashad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj113
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Bugal Prashad a confirmed Assistant Station Master of the Western Railway against an order of the Divisional Operating Superintendent, Jaipur, dated 6-2-58 removing him from service for seiious misconduct which was confirmed on appeal by the Divisional Superintendent, Jaipur, or. 22-3-58.2. The facts which have given rise to this application arc these. The petitioner was working as Assistant Station Master, Malakhera from 31-5-55 when information was given to the police that he had demanded a bribe for booking a grinding stone. A trap was laid on 4-2-56 and it is alleged that currency notes of the value of Rs. 4/- were recovered from the pocket of the coat of the petitioner by S.I. Mohan Singh, Special Police Establishment, who held a police enquiry into the matter. For some reason which does not appear from the record the petitioner was not prosecuted in the criminal court for the alleged offence ...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Bhanwar Bai and ors. Vs. Balmukund and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj9
I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is an appeal by Mst. Bhamvar Bai, Laxmi Bai and Radha Bai objectors in a case for grant of a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The material facts out of which this appeal arises may be very shortly stated as follows. The estate with respect to which the present dispute arose belonged to one Shrinath who died on 4-6-1952. The respondent Balmukand applied to obtain a succession certificate with reference to certain debts of the deceased on the ground that he was the son of the deceased Shrinath, This application was contested by the present appellants on the ground that Balmukand respondent was not the son of Shrinath at all and thatthe objectors who were the daughters of the deceased were his nearest heirs. The Civil Judge of Jhalawar, in whose court the application for succession certificate was filed, dismissed the objections and allowed the succession certificate to the respondent. Th...
Tag this Judgment!C.R. Alwares Vs. Habool and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj100; 1959CriLJ656
D.S. Dave, J. 1. This is an appeal by the complainant under Section 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order of the Second Class Magistrate, Patan dated the 19th of April, 1957 acquitting the accused Habool and Shamshuddin of an offence under Section 447 Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant filed a complaint under Section 447 Indian Penal Code in the court of the First Class Magistrate, Bundi against the accused Habool and Shamshuddin on the 29th of December, 1958. The Magistrate sent the complaint for enquiry and report to the police. The police reported that an offence under Section 447 Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused. Thereafter the case was registered and it was transferred to the Magistrate at Patan, The Magistrate at Patan tried the case and before April, 1957, the complainant finished all his evidence and even the accused produced three witnesses in their defence. On the 19th of April, 1957, when the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›