Rajasthan Court March 1960 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.
Ram Niwas Vs. Nihal Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj203
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the appellate decree of the Civil Judge, Balotra dated 25-9-1954, dismissing the plaintiffs suit for ejectment in respect of a shop situated in Balotra.2-3. The facts, which to a great extent are not in dispute, are as follows:The defendant Nihalsingh came to Balotra some time after 1947. He took on rent a shop belonging to the original plaintiff, Mst. Munni widow of Meg-raj, now dead and represented by Ramniwas (a legatee under a will) at Rs. 16/12/- per month. When this shop was taken on lease, is not clear from the materials on record. It, however, appears that soon after, the defendant Nihalsingh took proceedings before the Sub-divisional Officer, Balotra for the determination of the fair rent under the Marwar House Rent Control Act No. XXV of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Marwar Act). The Sub-divisional Officer vide his order dated 6th July, 1950 fixed fair rent of the shop as Rs. 9/- per month. A fresh rent-n...
Kanhaiyalal Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj63
D.S. Dave, J.1. This is an appeal by accused Kanhaiyalal against the judgment of the learnedSessions Judge, Bikaner, dated 29th June 1959, whereby he has been convicted under Section 20 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to one year's R. I.2. The charge against the appellant, which has been found to be proved against him by the trial court, was that on the night between 6th and 7th, August, 1958, when his personal search was taken by Shri Vinod Kishan Kaul, Assistant Superintendent of Police (under training), one Mauser automatic pistol No. 103464 together with 8 live cartridges was found in the pocket of his shirt which he was wearing. The allegation against the appellant was that he had not obtained any licence for possessing a fire-aim or ammunition.It was further alleged against him that since the pistol was found in the right hand side of his lower pocket wrapped up in a handkerchief, he committed an act mentioned in Clause (f) of Section 19, of the Arms Act in such manner as to...
Ram Chandra Vs. Laxman Das and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC367(Raj)
L.N. Chhangani, J. 1. These two revision petitions have been preferred by the petitioner Ramchandra against the identical orders passed by the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, on 17th October, 1959, in two Civil Original Cases Nos. 77 of 1958 and 78 of 1958 pending between the parties. They raise common questions of law and shall be disposed of by one judgment.2. The facts which have given rise to these revision petitions may be briefly stated as follows :-3. It is not in dispute that a partnership was created between Ramchandra, the petitioner, and Laxmandas, Pamandas and Dharamdas, the non-petitioners, on 8th November, 1953, and the partnership business was started in the name of Messrs Arjun Das Laxmandas. The petitioner Ramchandra filed a suit against Laxmandas, Pamandas and Dharamdas in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, on 17th July, 1958, for the dissolution of the partnership and for rendition of accounts. This is Civil Suit No. 77 of 1958. One of the defences which is relevant for th...
State Vs. Matu and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ422
ORDERD.S. Dave, J.1. These two references come on the report of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, dated 26-5-1959, and arise in the following circumstances:2. In village Dheendhwas Bichla a dispute arose about a field Khasra No. 129 between two parties. According to the prosecution, one Lala Khati was the owner of the said field and before his death he sold it to Chandra Jat, who began to cultivate it. After Lala's death, Ladu Khati asserted his son Pala's title over the said property on the ground that Pala was adopted by Lala prior to his death. The story goes that on 10th August, 1957, a number of persons, who sided with the two parties, referred above, assembled at the disputed field and there was a clash between the two.It is alleged that deadly weapons were used by members of both the parties, with the result that several persons were injured and Dhanna belonging to Chandra's party and Ladu Khati belonging to the other party were done to death. After investigation, the polic...
The State Vs. Radhey Shyam
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Raj288; 1960CriLJ1661
Ranawat, J.1. This is an appeal by the State from the judgment of the Magistrate First Glass, Bikaner, dated the 18th of August 1958 acquitting the accused Radheshyam under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the case was triable under the Prisons .Act of 1894 by the Superintendent of Prisons.2. The facts of the prosecution case were that the accused Radheshyam was an under-trial prisoner on the 15th of October 1957 when the occurrence took place. He was in detention in the District Jail, Bikaner. On the 15th of October 1957 he was taken to the court premises for attending the hearing of the case against him. He was led to the latrines for allowing him to attend to the call of nature and when he insisted to go in a particular latrine to contact some lady who was already inside it, Fakir Mohammad, constable on duty, did not permit him to go there. The prisoner then tried to assault Fakir Mohammad, but he was stopped from doing so by another constable on duty, namely ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Shamlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Raj256
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. This Special Bench was constituted on a reference made to me by a Division Bench of this Court presided over by Modi and Bhandari JJ. As the order of reference shows, the learned Judges were 'not agreed on the proper interpretation to be put on Article 295(2) of the Constitution in view of the opinions expressed' in their respective judgments. They, however, were pleased to formulate the point of reference as follows :'Whether the expression 'Government of the corresponding Indian State' used in Article 295(2) of the Constitution with reference to Rajasthan properly means the Government of the United State of Rajasthan which was the only Indian State in existence at the time of the commencement of the Constitution Or it also includes the Government of any of the Covenanting States which had integrated with the United State before the Constitution came into operation? 'Having had the benefit of perusing the judgments of the learned Judges making the reference and t...
Maula Bux and ors. Vs. the Appellate Tribunal of State Transport Autho ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Raj19
Ranawat, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners Maulabux and sixteen others are bus operators. They held permits for stage carriages on (1) Sikar--Losal, (2) Sikar--Singrawat, (3) Sikar--Khur, (4) Sikar--Danta Ramgarh, (5) Danta Ramgarh--Losal routes. The Regional Transport Authority with the consent of all the petitioners and respondent No. 13, who was also a bus operator on the aforesaid routes, integrated all the five routes into one by its resolution No. 364 of the 18th and 20th of August 1956. The petitioners and respondent No. 13 were allowed temporarily to ply their buses on the integrated route till they were granted permanent permits. The Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, advertised the integrated route for grant of permits, and published all the applications that they received in response to their advertisement and considered them in their meeting dated the 7th of October 1958.The Regional Transport Authority granted t...
Hazari Lal and anr. Vs. Chhaju Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Raj319
Bhargava, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of tha District Judge, Ganganagar dated 6th June, 1956 and has arisen under the following- circumstances:2. One Chhaj'u Ram filed a money suit against firm Indrajmal Bholanath and during the pendency of that suit applied under Order 38 rule 5 for attachment of the defendants' property. On being directed by the court to furnish security one Hukamchand offered himself as surety for the defendants for the due performance of the decree which might eventually be passed against Mm. Tha suit was ultimately decreed. The defendants filedan appeal before the High Court against the said decree and also obtained an order for stay of the execution of the decree on the condition that they furnished security for the due performance of the decree to the satisfaction of the executing court. Accordingly Moti Ram and Hazari Lal who are appellants before us stood sureties and submitted the surety bonds which appear on pages 23 and 24 of the paper boo...
Nathia and anr. Vs. Sonia and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj42; 1961CriLJ314
ORDERI.N. Modi, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional District Magistrate Alwar and raises an interesting question of procedure.2. The material facts may be stated briefly as follows. The petitioners Nathia and another instituted a complaint against the opposite parties Sonia and others under Sections 323, 352 and 504 I. P. C. in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh, on the allegations that the accused while purporting to build on their land on 23-1-1958, had really encroached on a public thoroughfare, and on thepetitioners' remonstrating against that, the accused Sonia and Bhoria beat them with lathis and the other accused Kana and Mohana threw stones at them as a result of which they received a number of injuries.It was further alleged that some other persons residing in the village intervened between the parties, otherwise the petitioners would have been given a still severe beating. The petitioners appear to have got themselves medically examined. On 29-1-1958, ...
Nirmal Singh and anr. Vs. Satnam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Raj313
I.N. Modi, J.1. This appeal by the defendantsNirmal Singh son of Ujagar Singh and Tara Siughson of Arud Singh is directed against the judgmentand decree of the Civil Judge, Ganganagar dated 20-3-1956, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for declaration and possession.2. The dispute relates to half of one Murabba No. 23 Measuring 12% bighas situate in Chak 20 BB, Tehsii Padampur. It is common ground between the parties that this Murabba originally belonged to Melaram, deceased grandfather oi: the plaintiff Satnam and of defendant Bishan Singh, and father of defendant Daulatram, who have been impleaded as defendants Nos, 4 and 3 respectively in this suit. It is not disputed that Melaram had two sons Laxmansingh and Daulatram, and that there was a private partition between these two persons as a result of which the Murabba was divided between them in two equal shares. The plaintiff Satnam and defendant Bishen Singh are sons of Daulatram, The plaintiffs case is that on the 15th April, 1953, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »