Rajasthan Court October 1962 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.
indersingh and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Raj81; 1964CriLJ429
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J. 1. As common question of law has been raised, these two revision applications are being disposed of by this judgment.2. Both these applications arise out of the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate before whom the proceedings were instituted, referred the question of possession to a Civil Court under Section 146 (i) of the Code and after receiving the finding from the Civil Court, disposed of the proceedings. A revision application was preferred against the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate before the Sessions Judge, but he held that 'the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has done what was required by law to do'. He has not given his own finding. He has given his finding on the basis of the findings communicated to him by the learned Civil Judge. Under these circumstances as there is no judgment of the Magistrate himself no revision lies. A preliminary objection has been raised that no...
Ramnath and anr. Vs. Karnidan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj116
I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a civil regular second appeal by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Bikaner, dated the 27th January, 1962, affirming the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge Bikaner dated the 7th November, 1960, in a suit for recovery of mortgage money by sale of the property under mortgage. The appeal raises an interesting question as to the applicability of Order 2, Rule 2, C. P. C. 2. The material facts are these. On the 5th December, 1949, Mst. Lali, widow of Rambus together with her son Ramnath, made a mortgage for a sum of Rs. 4000/- in favour of one Sobanlal Vyas with respect to the suit house. The plaintiffs are the legal representatives of the deceased Sohanlal. The defendant Mst. Tulcha is the daughter-in-law of Mst. Lali, wife of the said Ramnath, in whose favour Mst. Lali had made a will with respect to the house in question. The mortgage-deed is Ex. 1. On the 19th May, 1953, the mortgagees instituted a suit for the recovery of ...
Badri Prasad and anr. Vs. Ram Prasad and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj106
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a civil regular second appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and possession which has been dismissed by both courts below for reasons presently to be mentioned. But before I deal with the case on the merits, I feel bound to point out that this is a typical case where rules of procedure have been allowed to override the dictates of justice and for no valid reason whatsoever.2. This litigation was started on the 11th April, 1947. The dispute is about a certain piece of land measuring 15 yards by 11 yards situate in the town of Bari in Mohalla Sarai which was shown as 'A' in a rough sketch incorporated under paragraph one of the plaint. The plaintiffs put their case in this way. It was alleged that they were the owners in possession of plot B and that there was another plot A to the south of it: but as appears from the proceedings which took place subsequent to the riling of the plaint, the plot A which is in dispute is to the north of the plot B and a...
Mst. Sanjya W/O Mahadeo Vs. Chauthmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj129
D.M. Bhandari, J. 1. This is a Civil Second Appeal in a suit filed by Badri Narain, who is now represented in this appeal by his three sons, Chauthmal, Baboo, Radhey Shyam and Mst. Naraini his widow against Mst. Sanjya defendant-appellant and Bhoora Mal, another defendant. 2. The case as set up in the plaint is that on the 28h of July 1951, Mst. Sanjya, the defendant-appellant borrowed Rs. 901/- from the plaintiff and in security thereof mortgaged a shop situate in the town of Monoharpur and deliversd possession thereof. It was also agreed that the defendant-appellant shall pay 1 per cent per mensem as interest towards which Rs. 25/- per annum were to be adjusted as rent of the shop. This agreement was recorded in the khata (Ex. P/1) which beam the thumb impression of the defendant-appellant. It is further alleged that the defendant-appellant delivered the possession of the shop but the plaintiff was dispossessed therefrom on the 20th of May 1953 and refused to pay the money borrowed b...
The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Firm LaxminaraIn Harnarain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj162
Chhangani, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants Union of India through the General Manager, Northern and Western Railways, against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Alwar, dated the 4th July, 1955, decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for an amount of Rs. 48,349/11/3 with proportionate costs and allowing two months time within which the defendants should pay the decretal amount.2. The plaintiff-respondents instituted a suit on the 6th July, 1951 in the Court of District Judge, Alwar, against the Union of India, represented through the General Manager, East India Railway, Calcutta and the General Manager, B.B. and C.I. Railway, Bombay , predecessors-in-interest of the present railways. The plaintiffs put forward their case in the plaint as follows:They described themselves as partners of a firm known as Laxminarain Harnarain, registered under the provisions of the Partnership Act. Their firm used to carry on business at Kedalganj, Alwar. Their case was that on 13th...
Madan Lal Thanvi Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur and a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj136; 1963CriLJ50
Chhangani, J. 1. This is an application by Madanlal, an ex-employee of the Police Department, praying for the issue of a writ, direction or order to declare Rules 23 and 23A of the Rajasthan Government Servants and Pensioners Conduct Rules (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) as ultra vires and to quasb the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur, dated the 17th March, 1960, dismissing the petitioner from' service as upheld by the order of the Inspector General of Police, dated the 17th December, 1960, An alternative prayer was also made for issue of a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to recognise the Rajasthan Non-gazetted Police Karmachari Sangh.2. The relevant facts are briefly these:3. The petitioner was a constable in the Police Department in the former Jodhpur State and on integration of the former Jodhpur State with Rajasthan he was absorbed in the service of the Rajasthan State and was a Head Constable on the non-gazetted st...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›