Rajasthan Court July 1961 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.
Roopchand Vs. Punamchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj227
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for injunction.2. The dispute between the parties who are brothers relates to a joint wall situate between their respective houses. The house of the plaintiff stands to the east to that of the defendant. The case of the plaintiff was that this wall was his exclusive property, and that while he was at Bombay, the defendant had dismantled his house and started re-building it, and in doing so he had put in a chimney for the remission of smoke in his kitchen and set up some new 'Alas' and almirahs (the number whereof, incidentally, was not mentioned in the plaint) and further that he was raising the height of this wall so as to build a third storey on it. The case of the plaintiff further was that as soon as he was informed of what the defendant was doing, he hastened to his village from Bombay and raised a strong protest with the defendant but without any avail. A passing reference may as well be made to one more fact, and that...
Bhabhoot Singh Vs. Ghanshyam Durga Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj82
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a defendant's revision application against an appellate order of the Senior Civil Judge, Sirohi.2. The plaintiff got the cut crop of the defendant lying' on the threshing-floor as well as the grain lying in a cart near the threshing-floor attached under Order 38, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure. An objection was filed under Order 38, Rule 12 which provides that the plaintiff cannot apply for the attachment before judgment of any agricultural produce in the possession of an agriculturist. The learned Senior Civil Judge held that the cut crop lying on the threshing-floor was agricultural produce, but the grain lying in the cart near the threshing-floor was not such produce within the meaning of Rule 12 of Order 38. In my opinion his decision is correct.3. The term ''agricultural produce' has been used in the Code 6f Civil Procedure in a special sense and not in the comprehensive sense in which the term is generally used. Rule 43 of Order 21 provides for t...
Moti Lal and ors. Vs. Pooranchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj100
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a landlords' second appeal in a suit for eviction, which was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Ajmer in disagreement with the trial court which had decreed the suit.2. The only question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether the notice of ejectment given by the landlords to the respondent tenant was good in law. It is necessary to state just a few facts in order to appreciate this controversy. It is admitted that the rent-note which was the basis of the suit, Ext 3, (or Ex. A-6) was dated tile 8th August, 1962. It is further admitted that the tenancy commenced from the 1st August, 1952. The appellants landlords gave a notice of ejectment Ex. 4 on the 27th June, 1954, whereby they asked the respondent to 'vacate the premises by midnight of 31st July 1954/1st August 1954, when the next month's tenancy would terminate.' The respondent gave a reply to the aforesaid notice, Ex. A-3, on the 10th July 1954, wherein, it may be incidentally st...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›