Rajasthan Court April 1963 Judgments
Ram NaraIn Vs. Lt. Col. Hari Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Raj76
B.P. Beri, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Ganganagar dated 19th March, 1958 who has set aside the money decree, of the trial Court against one of the defendants.2. A Joint Hindu family firm of the name and style of Asaram Kedarmal instituted a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Suratgarh for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,400/8/6 as principal and Rs. 2,657/7/6 as interest against Harisingh Sikh and Lt. Col. HarisinghTo avoid confusion I shall be referring in this judgment one as Harisingh and the other as the Lt. Col. The plaintiff started money dealings with Harisingh who was a tenant of the Lt. Col. The latter undertook the responsibility of paying if any of the dues of Harisingh remainedunpaid. The transactions between the plaintiff and Harisingh were settled and cleared off and Harisingh executed an entry in the account book of the plaintiff for having received a sum of Rs. 7500/- in cash on 18-12-1953. T...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhu Dayal Vs. Girraj Kishore and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Raj225
D.M. Bhandari, J.1. This is a civil second appeal in a suit for grant of perpetual injunction and for possession of the land of the chowk which according to the plaintiff-appellant was joint.2. The main grievance of the plaintiff-appellant is that the trial Court had wrongly closed his evidence. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to refer to the following facts: In this case, the issues were framed on 15-1-1958 and the case was adjourned to 17-3-58 for the evidence of the parties. On 20-1-1958 the plaintiff applied that the summonses be issued to the six witnesses referred to in that application. He also deposited Rs. 25/- for the expenses of the witnesses. On 17-3-1958 an application was filed by the defendant-respondents that the plaintiff had not filed a list of witnesses as required by Order 16, Rule 1(i) of the Civil Procedure Code and the evidence of the plaintiff be ordered to be closed. On this, the plaintiff filed an application that eight witnesses referr...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Ram Vs. Abdul Wahab
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Raj234
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for rent and ejectment and arises under circumstances presently to be mentioned.2. The plaintiff's case was that he had purchased the suit house from Mst. Govindi Bai widow of one Laxmansingh by a registered sale deed (Ex. 1) dated the 30th July, 1956, and that the defendant was continuing as a tenant therein from before paying a rent of Rs. 3/- per mensem. The plaintiff's case further was that soon after the sale, Mst. Govindi Bai gave a notice to the defendant that she had sold the house to the plaintiff and the defendant should thenceforward pay the rent to the plaintiff, which fact is accepted by the defendant himself. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 9/- was due from the defendant as rent upto the 31st October, 1956. On the 5th October, 1956, the plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant to quit the suit house and pay the arrears of rent due from him, and there is no dispute about this notice. The plaintiff's cas...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Bahadur Vs. Mahadeo
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Raj241
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a civil regular second appeal by the defendant Suraj Bahadur against a preliminary decree in a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts.2. The plaintiff's case was that on the 27th April, 1946, he, the defendant and a third person named Anant Dattatray Ratna Parkhe had entered into a partnership for the purpose of working mica mines at village Para, Tehsil Kekri, and for carrying on business in that commodity by a partnership deed Ex. 3 which was executed at Ajmer and registered there. It was decided between the parties to carry on the business in the name of Malla and Company. This partnership continued for some time when Ratna Parkhe withdrew from it on the 18th May, 1949, and executed a deed of relinquishment to witness this, while the plaintiff and the defendant continued the partnership under a new deed of partnership (Ex. 1) dated the 18th May, 1949, which was registered at Kekri. Under this new deed, the shares of the partners were fi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramla Vs. Gyarsa
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Raj69
D.M. Bhandari, J. 1. This is a Civil Second Appeal in a suit filed by the decree-holder under Order 21, Rule 63, 2. Ramla had a decree against Chokhla in execution of which he attached the house property in dispute after the judgment-debtor was dead. Gyarsa defendant respondent filed a claim petition under Order 21, Rule 58, C. P. C. claiming the house attached to be his own. This claim petition was allowed on the I4th of July 1955. Thereupon Ramla brought the present suit making Gyarsa and three minor sons Sagra and others of Chokhla judgment-debtor as parties. No proceedings were, however, taken for the appointment of the guardian ad litem of the minors and eventually the suit was dismissed as against the minors. The suit proceeded against Gyarsa alone was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Alwar on 17th of March 1958 on the ground that the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor were necessary parties to the appeal, and as they were not made parties the appeal could not succeed. Ram...
Tag this Judgment!Dah Chand Vs. Dadamchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Raj209
I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a Civil regular second appeal by the defendant Dahchand in a suit for rent and ejectment. The Civil Judge Doongarpur dismissed the suit but on appeal the learned District Judge Udaipur decreed it for a sum of Rs. 230/- being the arrears of rent from the 2nd February,1954, to the 1st March, 1956, though impliedly that Court also maintained the dismissal of the suit so far as the relie) of ejectment was concerned. 2. The material facts leading up to this appeal may shortly be stated as follows : The plaintiff respondent Dadamchand obtained a money decree against Gulabchand, brother of Dahchand, who is the appellant before this Court. In execution of that decree Dadamchand brought the suit house for sale alleging it to be the property of Gulabchand. Dadamchand purchased it at a court-sale, and there is mate-ral on the record to show that he was put in possession of it on the 2nd February, 1954, vide the Sales-Amman's report Ex. 2. As things transpired, the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Kartar Singh Vs. Bogasingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Raj211
D.M. Bhandari, J. 1. This is a civil second appeal in a suit for setting aside a sale deed. 2. One Uttam Singh had 50 Bighas of land in Chak 1-h Tehsil Ganganagar. He died leaving behind him four sons and his widow Mst. Nihali. His tour sons are Ajayab Singh, Tara Singh, Dara Singh and Kartar Singh. On 19-9-1941, Ajayab Singh, Tara Singh, Dara Singh and Mst. Nihalj acting as guardian of Kartar Singh sold the aforesaid land for Rs. 5,000/- to Boga Singh and Gopal Singh under the sale deed Ex. 1. On 20th February, 1953, the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was filed by Kartar Singh and Dara Singh for setting aside the aforesaid sale deed. Kartar Singh pleaded that he was minor at the time of the execution of the sale deed. Dara Singh pleaded that he was also a minor and his mother had no necessity to sell the land on his behalf. The suit was contested fay Boga Singh and Gopal Singh who pleaded that Dara Singh was not a minor at the time of the execution of the sale deed and Mst. ...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Raj75
Ranawat, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioners Prem Singh and Vijai Singh have come to this Court against the State of Rajas-than and three others on the allegations that they held lands mentioned in the document Ex. 1 and have been cultivating and enjoying the said land even after the resumption of the petitioner's Jagir in the capacity of Khud Kasht holders. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 4--the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sambhar -- by his order dated the 24th of June, 1960, which is Ex. 1 on the record, restrained the petitioners from cultivating the said lands or from transferring the same. The authority of the Sub-Divisional Officer to make such an order or to interfere in the peaceful enjoyment of the petitioners of the land is questioned, and it is contended that it is not in accordance with law. It is prayed that the opposite parties be restrained from interfering in the enjoyment of the proprietary righ...
Tag this Judgment!Karan Raj and anr. Vs. Chunnilal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Raj72
I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a civil regular second appeal by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Balotra, dated the 21st December, 1957, in a suit for mortgage money and arises under circumstances presently to be mentioned. The plaintiffs have also filed a cross-objection. I propose to dispose of both these matters by a single judgment. The appellant Udaichand having died during the pendency of this appeal is represented by the other defendant Nath-mal who was already on the record and by Karan-raj, a minor son of Nathmal under the latter's guardianship. 2. The case of the plaintiffs was that on the 17th May, 1949, defendant No. 1 Udaichand as manager of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his son Nathmal had found a sum of Rs. 5500/- to be due to the plaintiffs and as a security for the repayment of this debt made a possessory mortgage of the suit house in favour of the plaintiffs by a mortgage-deed Ex. 5. It was agreed between the parties t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›