Rajasthan Court July 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.
Kalyan Sahai Vs. Mola Bux and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj91
D.S. Dave, J. 1. This is an appeal by the auction purchaser against the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City, dated the 27th January, 1956.2. The facts giving rise to it are that respondent No. 2 had obtained a decree for Rs. 361/- against respondent No. 1 Mola Bux. After adding Rs. 48/12/- for costs etc., he took out execution for realising the total amount of Rs. 408/12/-. In order to satisfy the said decree, the judgment-debtor's house, which was situated in Jaipur City, was put to auction subject to the mortgagee's charge to the extent of Rs. 4000/-. The auction of the said property commenced from 28-11-52 and continued for several days with intervals.On 10-12-52, the highest bid for Rs. 2000/- was one of Sanghi Gendilal, but it was not accepted. The property was again auctioned on 14th and 18th December, 1952, but nobody raised the bid. On 21st December, 1952, when the property was again auctioned, the appellant raised the bid to 2250/-. It was, however, not accept...
Mst. Mukan Kanwar Vs. Ajit Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj51
ORDERI.N. Modi, J.1. This is an application filed by Mst. Mukan Kanwar for grant of alimony pending the decision of the appeal filed by her against the judgment of the learned District Judge by which he annulled the petitioner's marriage with the respondent Ajit Chand.2. The contention of learned counsel as raised by him during the course of arguments before me is that the order dated the 19th March, 1958, passed by a learned single Judge in the petitioner's revision against the order of the learned District Judge refusing her alimony pending the proceeding in the trial court vide Mukan Kanwar v. Ajeet Chand, AIR 1958 Raj 322 stands, and that his client is entitled to receive the same alimony pending the decision of the appeal.Learned counsel argues that the appeal filed by his client is nothing but a continuation of the suit, and, therefore, the order made in the pendency of the suit automatically enures for the duration of the appeal also. In support of his submission, learned counse...
Narsingh Das Vs. Bhairon Dan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj81
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a regular second appeal by the defendant Narsingh Das in a suit for rendition of accounts.2. The material facts may be shortly stated as follows. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff Bhairon Dan on the allegations that there was a firm in the name of Bhairon Dan Madangopal which did business in cloth at Calcutta and that the defendant No. 1 Narsingh Das and the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 4 and 5 were its partners. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were the sons of Narsingh Das and were members of a joint Hindu trading family consisting of themselves and their father Narsingh Das.It was further alleged that the plaintiff held 4 1/2 annas share in this partnership business, defendants Nos. 4 and 5 held 31/2 annas share therein each and defendant No, 1 Narsinghdas held 4 annas share, and the remaining half anna share, was to go to charity. This, partnership, according to the plaintiff, was a partnership at will and had com-menced it...
Ramzan Khan Vs. Seth Hiralal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj118
ORDERJagat Narayan, J. 1. This is a revision, application by one Ramzan Khan against an order of the District Judge Jaipur City directing that the assets obtained by the sale of twelve shops in execution of his decree be ratably distributed amongst him and Hiralal, Pyarelal, Manakchand and Motilal respondents Nos. 1 to 4. 2. These twelve shops originally belonged to one Khawas Balabux who died before 1944 leaving a son Lekhraj. Khawas Balabux and Lekhraj constituted a joint Hindu family and the twelve shops which were attached by Ramzan Khan and four, of the respondents in their decrees are ancestral properties. It is not disputed that these twelve shops are equally liable to attachment and sale in execution, of all these decrees. Nona of the decree-holders is entitled to get any priority over the other decree-holders. 3. Ramzaa Khan obtained a decree against Lekh Raj in respect of a liability of his father, Bala Bus after the death of Bala Bux. Lekh Raj however died in 1951 leaving a ...
Dwarka Das and ors. Vs. Hanumandas and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj187
ORDERJagat Narayan, J. 1. This is a revision application by Dwarkadas, Kishangopal and Dhanraj defendants against an appellate order of the District Judge, Bika-ner setting aside an order of the Civil Judge Bikaner for returning the plaint fot presentation to proper court on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to try it as the defendants did not actually and voluntarily reside within his jurisdiction.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present revision application are these. Hanuman Das plaintiff instituted a suit against 9 defendants for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5225/7/6 in the court of the Civil Judge Bikaner on the allegation that they were partners in a firm Baneychand Suganchand with which he had deposited a sum of Rs. 9500/- at Calcutta on 28-3-50, that a sum of Rs. 6054/4/- had been paid to him on different dates in repayment of the amount and that the balance was not paid in spite of demand.3. The suit was brought for the recovery of the balance of t...
BadrinaraIn and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj48; [1962]32CompCas647(Raj); 1961CriLJ433
ORDERL.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is a revision by Badrinarain and Nandlal against the appellate order of the Additional Sessions judge, Jaipur City dated 6-7-1959, dismissing the petitioners' appeal and maintaining their convictions under Section 86D of Indian Companies Act, 1913 and sentence of Rs. 200/- fine on each.2. The Registrar of companies, Rajasthan, Jaipur forwarded a complaint against the petitioners to the District Magistrate on 21-6-1957 which was ordered to be forwarded to the City Magistrate for disposal. The public prosecutor presented this complaint before the City Magistrate on 16-9-57. The allegations made in the complaint were as follows:3. That the Vyapar Sangh Ltd., Chomu was incorporated and registered as a public limited company on 10-12-1946 under the provisions of the Jaipur Companies Act, 1942. The accused No. 1 Radri Narain was its director from the very inception of the company. The accused No. 2 was appointed as director of the Company on 1-11-1946.4. That t...
Mst. Jadav Vs. Ram Swarup and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj40
D.S. Dave, J. 1. This is a second appeal by Mst. Jadav against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Alwar, dated 24-8-1956. 2. The facts giving rise to it are that respondent No. 1 Ram Swarup obtained a money decree against respondent No. 2 Jai Govind and also against the assets of Jagdish Prasad, deceased husband of the appellant, which were in her possession. In execution of the said decree, the decree-holder got attached one-half portion of a Haveli saying that it belonged to Jagdish Prasad judgment-debtor. The appellant filed an objection petition under Section 47 C. P. C. It was averred by her that the portion of the Haveli which was attached belonged to her personally and not to her husband. She based her claim on a will which was said to have been executed in her favour on 20-8-52 by her grand-mother-in-law Mst. Bhagwati, who according to the appellant, was the then owner of the property attached. The appellant's claim was contested by the decree-holder. The executing cou...
Dashrat and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ403
ORDERL.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge, Merta recommending that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parbatsar dated 26-6-58, purporting to have been passed under Section 137 Cr. P.C. should be set aside.2. The relevant facts are these.-On 12-8-55, Surajmal and others residing in Jhandelwala Mohalla in the town of Makrana, presented an application to Station House Officer, Parbatsar stating that the rain water discharged from the houses of various persons flowing into their Mohalla had been passing through the way to he house of barbers Dasrath, Baksuram, Shanwarlal and Ramkishan from times immemorial and further complaining 'that the above mentioned barbers had caused an unlawful obstruction to the flow of water.The barbers had it was mentioned, kept a small mori (drain) but it was wholly insufficient to discharge the entire rain water. They proceeded to say that the collection of rain water is a serious danger to their houses and will result in san...
Smt. Sardar Devi Vs. Nihalkaran and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj184
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. 1. The only question which arises at this stage is in regard to the court fee paid by the appellant on the memorandum of appeal. The office has objected to the court fee paid on the ground of its insufficiency and it claims that the appellant is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the difference of the decretal amount taken as a whole and the present value of the instalments.2. The plaintiff appellant instituted a suit to which this appeal relates for recovery of a sum of money. The court below has passed a decree in her favour for a sum of Rs. 11,500/- principal in addition to interest at 6 per cent upto the date of the institution of the suit and the date of the decree, thereby making a total sum of Rs. 12,526, 43 nP. Thereafter the decree allows interest to the appellant at 4 1/2 per cent from 1-10-59 till realisation on the principal sum remaining due.The decree further directs payment of the amount in instalments. The plaintiff has appealed against the decree...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›