Rajasthan Court April 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.
Mohanlal and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj24
L.N. Chhangani, J. 1. This is an appeal by four appellants, two of whom Mohanlal and Parbhati have been convicted under Section 308 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and the remaining two Mangoo and Bissa have been convicted under Section 323 I. P. C. and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the First Information Report lodged by one Bhagwat-singh, cousin brother of the injured Gulley with the-Police Station, Dig at about 3-30 p. m. on 4-10-1957 within six hours of the incident, is as follows;3. On 4th October, 1957,'when the first informant Bhagwatsingh was in the jungle, six persons Mohanlal, Mangoo, Parb-hati, Bissa, Handoo and one unnamed son of Ram-chand, Gujars of Pasopa within the police Station, Dig having concerted, assaulted his cousin Gulley when he was returning after taking his bath in the Pokhar near the Poll of Ramhet. He was beaten by lathis very mercilessly and ultimately was given u...
Balabux and anr. Vs. Sitaram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj88
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. The facts giving rise to this revision application are that the non-petitioner Sita Ram filed a suit for recovery of possession of a shop against the petitioners in the court of the Civil-Judge, Bhilwara on 22-10-1955.2. The petitioners-defendants denied the plaintiff's claim, issues were framed on 17-12-1955 and the case was fixed for the plaintiff's evidence on 25-1-1956. On 25-1-1956 the following order was. passed by the learned Civil Judge:'Plaintiff's counsel present-- Plaintiff's evidence is not present -- the suit is therefore, dismissed for want of proof and may be consigned to record'.On the same day an application was moved by the plaintiff for restoration of the suit stating that he along with his witnesses was coming to the court but the case was called at 10.30 A. M. and dismissed. He further prayed that the statement of his witnesses might be recorded. Notice of this application was given to the petitioners and on 2-3-1956 the court set aside the...
Shankerlal and anr. Vs. Jethmal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj196
I.N. Modi, J.1. This appeal by the defendants Shankerlal and another is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Bhilwara, upholding the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Bhilwara, in a suit for refund of earnest money.2. The material facts are these. On the 27th March, 1953, defendants Shankerlal and Arjunlal agreed to sell and the plaintiffs to purchase the suit house for a sum of Rs. 12,000/- vide Ex. 1. The plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs. 700/- as earnest money then and there and the rest of the sale consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale-deed, and it was further agreed between the parties that the sale would be completed within one month of the date of the agreement.The case of the plaintiffs as disclosed in the plaint was that the suit land originally belonged to one Bherunlal Gelda of Udaipur, and the defendants had stated that they would settle the dispute with Bherunlal with respect to it and it was on this acc...
Balloram and anr. Vs. Firm Seth Uttamchand Bishandas and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj93
ORDERL.N. Chhangani, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' revision againstan appellate order of the District Judge, Bharatpurdated 8th September, 1955, dismissing the plaintiff-petitioners' appeal and maintaining the order of theCivil Judge, Bharatpur dated 22nd November, 1954returning the plaint for presentation to the propercourt. 2. The facts of the case broadly stated are as follows:--3. The plaintiff-petitioners, Balloram and Veryamal claim to be the proprietors of a firm Bansiram Bolloram which at one time carried on business in Sibi Bluchistan, now a part of Pakistan. The defendant-non-petitioner No. 1, Seth Uttamchand Bishandas is a firm carrying on business as commission agents and bankers at Meerut in Uttar Pradesh. The defendants No. 2 to 6 who are non-petitioners in the revision petition, viz. Kishandas, Ramdas, Pehumal, Tekchand, Joturam and Jethamal, are said to be its partners.4. The plaintiffs' case is that they appointed the defendants' firm as their commission agents for the p...
Jagannath Prasad Vs. Suraj Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj120
L.N. Chhangani, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal against the appellate judgment and decree of the District Judge, Bharatpur dated 28-2-1959 con-finning the decree of the Munsif, Bayana decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for ejectment and arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 408/-. 2. As the controversy between the parties is very narrow, only a few facts need be stated: 3. The plaintiff instituted a suit on 8-7-1957 in the court of the Munsif, Bayana and claimed ejectment of the defendant from the shop and arrears of rent for a period of 31 months. The ejecmtent was claimed on two grounds; (1) That the shop was bona fide and reasonably required for the plaintiffs use. (2) That, the defendant had defaulted more than three times during a period of 18 months and is not entitled to protection in view of second proviso to Section 13(1)(a) of the Rajashtan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act XVII of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. The defendant ...
Mohanlal and anr. Vs. Banshilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj13
L.N. Chhangani, J. 1. This is a second appeal by Mohan-lal and Nihalchand against the appellate decree of the Civil Judge, Sirohi dated 5-11-1958, whereby a direction given by the Munsif, Abu Road for the payment of a decree against them in further easier instalments was reversed.2. The facts briefly stated are as follows:On 5-10-1956, a consent decree was passed in favour of the respondent Banshilal for an amount of Rs. 675/- payable in monthly instalments of Rs. 20/- each. On 14-10-1957, the present appellants put up an application before the Munsif, Abu Road under Section 24 of the Bombay Moneylenders Act, 1948 (Bombay Act No. XXXI of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for re-fixation of the instalments on easier terms. After giving notice to the respondent, the Munsif accepted the application and directed that the remaining decretal amount shall be payable in instalments; i.e. Rs. 50/- payable on 15th May of each year and Rs. 25/- payable on 15th November of each year.3. Ag...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›