Rajasthan Court September 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.
State Vs. Bhagwan Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Raj81; 1963CriLJ481
Bhandari, J. 1. These two appeals relate to a matter in which the prosecution was for driving the truck No. RJP 479 on 17th July, 1958, at about 9 P.M., in the town of Malsisar without permit required under Section 42(1) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act). The truck No. RJP 479 was a public-carrier vehicle owned by Sita Ram accused and on that night it was driven by Bhagwan Singh accused. The police constable Shri Goduram who was at the police station Malsisar stopped the truck on the main road and informed Phul Singh constable, who examined it. The said constable found that the truck had no permit as required under Section 42(1) of the Act. Two other deficiencies were noticed; one was that there was no horn on the truck and the other was that the driver was unable to produce the certificate of insurance when Phul Singh had demanded it from him. Phul Singh reported the matter to the Station House Officer, Police Station Malsisar and a complaint was filed i...
Ramdeo and ors. Vs. Birdi Chand Sumer Mal of Sambhar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj164
1. The suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted by Messrs Birdi Chand SumerMal and Gambhir Mal in the court of District Judge, Sarnbhar Lake, on October 20, .1949, and arose in these circumstances: 2. Messrs Birdi Chand Sumer Mal was a partnership firm which carried on business of sale and purchase of gunny bags at Sambbar. Plaintiff Pambhir Mal and one Tikarn Chand were proprietors of that firm. The defendants are members of a joint Hindu family firm styled as 'Shri Narain, Ram Deo' which also dealt in gunny bags at Sambhar. Ramdeo (defendant No. 1) is the manager of that joint family firm. In Bauch Samvai 2003 there were transactions between the parties for delivery of 660 hales of gunny bags, of a specified size, to the defendants on Magh Sudi 15 Samvat 2003. .While the plaintiffs contended that the defendants failed to take delivery on the due date and broke the .contract, putting them to a loss of Rs. 73,751/-, the defendants alleged that it were they who suffered a loss of ...
Sita Ram and anr. Vs. Tarachand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj136
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated May 26, 1959, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer, dismissing the objections of the, judgment-debtors-appellants under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the execution case.2. The relevant facts, though not elaborately set out in the order under appeal, are not disputed by the parties and they may be briefly indicated as follows: The decree-holder-respondent instituted a suit for recovery of certain ornaments which were said to have been in the custody of Bengali Lal, and in the alternative, for recovery of the value thereof amounting to about Rs. 26,000/-. The suit was filed in December, 1945. A written statement on behalf of Bengali Lal was presented sometime in March, 1947, denying his liability. It is said that Bengali Lal was mentally infirm at the time and therefore the written statement was presented by a guardian on his behalf. Bengali Lal died during the pendency of the suit and in December, 19...
Jaichand Lal Vs. Firm Kesrichand Bhanwarlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj88
Bhargava J.1. Following a decision of this Court in Manna Lal v. Paney Chand, ILR (1959) 9 Raj 62 : (AIR 1959 Raj 166) the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ganganagar, has returned the plaint in the present case for presentation to the proper court.2. The suit was filed by the present appellant for recovery of Rs. 29,940/- for price of parts of machinery supplied by him to the defendants at Calcutta on 15th April, 1956. Defendant No. 2 is the father, defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are his sons, and it was alleged in the plaint that they were all members of a joint Hindu family and carried on their business in the name of firm Kesrichand Bhanwarlal at Rajbiraj, a, place within the State of Nepal. Firm Kesrichand Bhanwarlal of Rajbiraj was also impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the suit. In the plaint, defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were described as residents of Nohar within the district of Ganganagar and that is why the suit was filed at Ganganagar. Defendants filed their written statement and objected ...
Municipal Board Vs. Sooraj Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj169
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a civil regular second appeal by the defendant Municipal Board, Baran, against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Baran,. dated the 10th October, 1955, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for damages and for return of certain money which had been recovered by the defendant from the plaintiffs, in all amounting to Rs. 550/-.2. The material facts leading up to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows : The plaintiffs carried on business at all material times in the name of Narainji Harishanker in the town of Baran. It is common ground that they had been constructing a house in this town for about three or four years prior to the institution of this suit, and in that connection a Sanitary Inspector of thin Municipality reported to the Board that the plaintiffs had collected certain building material on Khalsa land in front of and behind the house under construction, without the permission of the Board, and that rent was due from them for such occupation fro...
Sarwan and anr. Vs. Purilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ716
ORDERD.S. Dave, J.1. This reference comes on the report of the District Magistrate, Tonk, dated 29th March, 1961.2. The facts giving rise to it are that one Purilal Brahman resident of Shukalpura, filed an application in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tonk, Under Section 133, Cr, P. C. it was stated by him that he was taking his cattle to the pasture land through a plot Khasra No. 516, what was a public path, that the opposite parties, namely, Sarwan and Pratap had made encroachment on the public way by unlawful extension of their Baras and therefore it was prayed that proceedings should be taken against them and unlawful obstruction should be removed from the said public path, namely, Kharasa No. 516. On nth January 1961, the opposite parties presented a joint reply. It was pleaded by them that they had purchased the land in dispute from the Gram Panchayat and that they had not made any encroachment on the public path. After inquiry, the Sub Divisional Magistrate came to ...
Government of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Sangram Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj43
Bhandari, J. 1. These two appeals involve important questions relating to the law of limitation and have been referred by a Division Bench to a Full Bench. 2. In Appeal No. 8 of 1958, a decree Was passed by the then High Court of Bikaner on the 28th of July 1941 in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction in favour of the former Bikaner State against Thakur Sangram Singh of Ghuala. On the 30th of July 1941, an application for the enforcement of the decree by means of arrest of the judgment-debtor was filed in the. Bikaner High Court. This application was consigned to record at the request of the decree-holder On the 27th of February 1942. aS a result of the constitutional changes, the assets and liabilities of the former Bikaner State devolved on the State of Rajasthan under Article 295 of the Constitution and the State of Rajasthan applied for enforcement of the aforesaid decree against the judgment-debtor in this Court on the 13th of July 1953 and it was sent to the District Judge...
Nanga Vs. Dhannalal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj68
Bhargava, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of the amount due under an instrument which was held to be inadmissible in evidence by the learned Munsif, Gangapur holding that it was a promissory note and was insufficiently stamped. The document in question was executed on 5th December, 1951 and according to the law then in force it required a stamp of -/5/- whereas it bore a stamp of -/4/- only. 2. The learned Munsif having found that the document, which way the basis of the suit, was inadmissible in evidence dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 3. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif to the court of the Civil Judge, Gangapur. The learned Civil Judge, Gangapur held that the provisions of Section 35 of the Stamp Act related to procedural law and therefore, the admissibility of the document should be determined according to the Stamp Law which is in force on the date the document is sought to be tendered in evidence and not a...
Ramla Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-1961
Reported in: 1963CriLJ387
D.S. Dave, J.1. This is an appeal by accused, Ramla, against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore, dated the 27th March, 1961, whereby he has been convicted under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to five years' R.I.2. The case relates to an incident, which took place at village Sanghana on the night between the 1st and 2nd June, 1960. The first information report about the occurrence was lodged on the next day by P.W. Khubla at police station, Bhawatra.3. The prosecution story in this case was that the appellant had illicit intimacy with Mst. Chunki, widow of Fatta, who was uncle of P.W. Kastura P.W. Kastura resented the appellant's illicit connection with Mst. Chunki and, therefore, he used to reprimand, him from time to time. The story goes that three days before the occurrence, Kastura again reprimanded the appellant and asked him to stop his visits to Mst. Chunki and, thereupon, the appellant told him that he should not meddle in the affair, ot...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›