Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1960Raj60
Bhandari, J. 1. This Civil Second Appeal has been referred by Ranawat J. to a Division Bench as it involves an important point of law relating to the interpretation of Section 2 of the Hindu Married Women's Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act, 1946 (No. 19 of 1946) (hereinafter called the Act).2. On the 4th of November, 1950 Mst. Kallu plaintiff-respondent filed an application to sue in forma pauperis against her husband Gopal defendant-appellant in the court of the Munsiff, Tonk with the allegations that she had been married to the defendant about 12 or 13 years back and lived with him as his wife. In 1947, she became sick and pregnant and the defendant treated her cruelly and did not make any arrangements for her treatment. On the other hand he left her with her father. Since that time the defendant had not been paying any maintenance allowance to her and also did not take her to his house.The plaintiff filed an application under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1959Raj273; 1959CriLJ1365
Bapna, J.1. This is a petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Bag Ali son of Ali Mohammed of Lal Garh, district Ganganagar (now confined in District Jail, Bikaner) on the ground that he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Bikaner Penal Code (equal to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code) by judgment of the Bikaner High Court dated 1st December, 1947 and had served out the sentence.He was also sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 B.P.C., one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 B.P.C. and three vears rigorous imprisonment under Section 325 B.P.C. The sentences were to run concurrently, but a direction wag given that the sentence served by the petitioner from 27-4-1946 to 4-7-1946 be counted towards the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to the accused. He was admitted to jail on 1-12-1947.2. The case of the petitioner is that he had earned 8 years and 21 days by way of remissio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1960Raj56
Modi, J.1. This is a writ application by Poonamram an ex head constable against the State by which the order of the Inspector General of Police dated the 21st May, 1955, discharging him from service from the 1st June, 1955, has been challenged as being beyond jurisdiction.2. The material facts out of which this application arises may be shortly stated as follows. The petitioner Poonamram appears to have been appointed as a Head Constable in the former State of Sirohi, some time in 1935, though the order of his original appointment has not been produced before us. Thereafter as a result of the integration of the State of Sirohi with the State of Rajasthan, he was also confirmed as a Head Constable by the Deputy Inspector General of Police.He was posted at the Saroopganj police outpost, District Sirohi, at the relevant time. On the 14th August, 1954. the Sub-Inspector Sultan Khan happened to visit Saroopganj outpost at about 5 A. M. The Sub-Inspector stayed at Saroopganj till 9 A. M. but...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1959Raj274
Jagat narayan, J.1. This is an appeal by one Ram Khilari against an. order of the District Judge, Bharatpur, dismissing his election petition against Hari Singh.2. Ram Khilari and Hari Singh were candidates for election to the Municipal Board, Bharatpur from Ward No. 19. 19th March, 1956 was the date fixed for election. Hari Singh filed his nomination paper on 4-3-56, Polling took place on 19-3-56 as a result of which Hari Singh was declared elected. Ram Khilari filed an election petition inter alia on the ground that the nomination paper of Hari Singh was invalid having been filed beyond time. The learned District Judges found that the nomination paper was in fact filed beyond time. But he held that the case fell under sub-clause (5) of Sec. 19 and the election of Hari Singh was not vitiated. Against this decision, the present appeal has been filed.3. The first question for decision is as to whether Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Town Municipal Election Rules, 1951 is mandatory. It runs as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1960Raj20
ORDERD.M. Bhandari, J.1. This is a revision application on behalf of Raghunath Prasad defendant against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City, dated 9-1-1957 holding that the document dated 2-4-1953 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff Mangilal was not a promissory note but was an agreement and could be admitted in evidence after the payment of penalty. The defendant made an application to the trial court that he wanted to file a revision application in this Court and that the document may not be admitted in evidence and it has not yet been admitted in evidence.2. I am very doubtful whether a revision application against the order determining the nature of the document for the purpose of the Stamp Act can be filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. There is no question of jurisdiction involved in this case as the learned Senior Civil Judge had jurisdiction to decide the nature of the document for the purpose of the Stamp Act. As to the application...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1959Raj127
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff Koodi against the judgment and decree of the District Judge Alwar dated 15-4-1953, in a suit for possession.2. The following pedigree table will be found helpful in understanding the facts of the case out of which this appeal arises:PEMA|_________________________________________| | |Leela Hukmi Heera | (Proforma (ProformaKoodi Deft.No.3) Deft.No.4) (Plaintiff)3. The case of the plaintiff Koodi was that Roshan, father of defendant No. 1 Baboo, had obtained a money decree against defendant Hukmi and that in execution of that decree, he had the suit house attached and sold on the allegation that it was the exclusive property of the judgment-debtor aforesaid and defendant No. 2 Narain had purchased the same at a public auction. The plaintiffs case further was that the suit house was the joint and ancestral property of the plaintiff and the other defendants Hukmi and Heera, and that the former had a one-third share therein and his sha...
Tag this Judgment!