Rajasthan Court July 1963 Judgments
Municipal Council Vs. Rama and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Raj107; 1965CriLJ599
Bhandari, J. 1. This is a Reference by the Sessions Judge, Ajmer, recommending that the sentence of the accused Rama be enhanced to one week's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 15 days' further rigorous imprisonment. 2. The accused was challaned for having sold adulterated milk to Kartar Singh, Food Inspector, Municipal Area, on 2nd of July 1961. A complaint was filed on the 3rd of October 1961 by the Medical Officer of Health, Municipal Committee, Ajmer, Summonses were issued against the accused for 21st of November 1961. Summonses were not served and the ease was adjourned to 5th of December, 1961. Thereafter, there is a note on the back of the complaint which is, as follows: 'M.P.I. present, Accused present, Particulars of the offence read over and explained to the accused. He pleads not guilty and furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 500 each for regular Court attendance. But up on 8-1-1962.' There is no date on this order. ...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhati and ors. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1963
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1332
L.N. Chhangani, J. 1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, dated 12th March, 1963 in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1961. By this order he convicted the nine appellants of an offence under Section 395 read with section 397, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each one of them to seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500 each, and in default, six months further rigorous imprisonment. The Addtional Sessions judge had tried eleven persons but the two co-accused Handa and Titaria were acquitted. S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1963 is by the accused through Advocate Shri Sobhag Mal and S. B. Criminal Appeal (Jail) No. 240/62 is through jail. Both of them shall be disposed of by one judgment. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 28th of July, 1958 at about 6-30 P.M. thirteen persons including the present appellants, armed with spears, axes and rifles went to village Bhanwata, a village in sub-divis...
Tag this Judgment!Devisingh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Raj36; 1964CriLJ359
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. The four appellants before me, Devisingh, Sure, Ramsingh and Bhagi, Gujars, residents of Atraj-ka-pura, Tehsil Bari, District Dholpur, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, for offences under Sections 147, 224, 307, 332 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted Devisingh and Sure under Section 224 and Ramsingh and Bhogi under Section 225, Indian Penal Code and sentenced each one of them to a fine of Rs. 600/- and, in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months. They were acquitted of all other offences.2. The prosecution case was that one Chabraj Gujar PW/11 of Nayagaon, Madhya Pradesh, filed a complaint against Devisingh and Sure in the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Gwalior accusing them of an offence under Section 363. Indian Penal Code. According to him, his wife Mst. Gore and daughter were kidnapped or abducted by these persons and were being kept in wrongful confinement. The Additional Distri...
Tag this Judgment!Nannah Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Raj40
Modi, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for damages and has been placed before this Bench on a reference by one of us sitting singly. The suit has been dismissed by both Courts below on a preliminary point relating to the invalidity of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. It is unnecessary to state the facts of the case at any length as the suit has been thrown out by both Courts below on the afore-mentioned preliminary point only. Suffice it to say that on the 12th April, 1949, the plaintiff delivered 150 goats and sheep to what was then the B. B. and C. I. Railway at the Sojat Road Railway Station for being transported to the Railway Station Bandra (Bombay) of the same Railway. The animals were booked in three wagons in lots of fifty each. One of these caught fire on the way with the result that thirty-two of them were burnt to death in the wagon itself and ten died later and the remaining eight out of this wagon were delivered to the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!indersingh and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Raj48
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is an appeal by Inder Singh and Sham Singh whose suit for the grant of various reliefs was dismissed by the courts below, on the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try it.2. The relevant facts are these: Two brothers Abdul Aziz and Faiz Mohammad were owners of 30 Bighas 1 Biswa agricultural land situated in Chak No. 49 GGA Tehsil Karanpur District Ganganagar. They mortgaged 8 Bighas 13 Biswas out of this land on 29-4-1947 usufructuarily in favour of the plaintiffs by means of a registered mortgage deed. They also executed an agreement of sale on 21-7-1947 in favour of the plaintiffs agreeing to sell their entire land for a sum of Rs. 8,000/-, They admitted the receipt of this consideration in full and promise to execute a sale deed within a year. But after the partition of the country they left their village. : They were declared to be evacuees and their land amounting to 30 Bighas J Biswa was declared to be evacuee property under order dated 7-...
Tag this Judgment!Dhonkal Vs. Rugha and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Raj55
Shinghal, J.1. This second appeal by defendant Dhonkal son of Bhoma has been referred to a division bench of this Court by an order of a learned single Judge dated August 28, 1962, as it raises an important question as to the validity of Clause '3rdly', read with the subsequent provision about the drawing of lots of Section 9 of the Ajmer Laws Regulation, 1877, hereinafter referred to as the Regulation.2. The facts of the case may be stated briefly for they are not in dispute. Defendant-appellant Dhonkal son of Bhoma purchased 9 bighas and 7 biswas of agricultural land in village Tihari, bearing Khasra No. 1133, from defendant Dhonkal sort of Hardeo of that village. The sale-deed was executed on October 6, 1950. Plaintiff Rugha filed a suit on October 4, 1951, in the court of Sub-Judge First Class, Ajmer, against both of them, for preemption, alleging that he was entitled to purchase the land in preference to Dhonkal son of Bhoma. The claim was denied by the defendant-vendee who took s...
Tag this Judgment!Jandas and ors. Vs. Indermal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Raj58
Jagat Narayan, J.1. These are connected cases arising out of the suit for recovery of money on the basis of a mutual, open and current account instituted by Indermal and others against Jandas and others. 2. It is not disputed that there were dealings between the parties in Smt. 2009 and there was a mutual, open and current account between them. The case of the plaintiffs was that this account regained open and current till Kartik Sudi 2 Smt. 2012 corresponding to 16-11-1955 when the parties met and went into the accounts in part. The accounts were however not fully settled on that day. The defendants promised to settle them by Mugsar Sudi 15 Smt. 2012 corresponding to 29-12-1955 and executed a writing (Ex. 5), the material portion of which runs as follows:^^vijap vkids gekjs tks :i;k nsukgS lks fexij lqn 15 ifgyh vkidks fglkc feyk dj ds jde ckdh jglh lks ckdh fudky nlqa A** The present suit was instituted on 2-1-59 on the re-opening of the courts after Christmas holidays.3. The defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Nawalmal and ors. Vs. Sagarmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Raj122
Jagat Narayan, J.1. These are two connected revision applications which can best be disposed of by one judgment.2. Ganeshmal and Amarchand constituted a joint Hindu family. They owned two houses which were attached before judgment under Order 38, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code in a suit instituted against them by one Sagarmal. 'A decree in the suit was passed against Ganeshmal and Amarchand on 26-10-1957. Thereafter Ganeshmal died leaving Amarchand and a daughter Smt. Atri. In view of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, Ganeshmal's share in the joint family property belonging to Ganeshmal and Amarchand devolved on Smt. Atri and Amarchand. Amarchand was thai owner of half of the joint family property during the life time of Ganeshmal. On the death of Ganeshmal, his share devolved equally on Smt. Atri and Amarchand. In the result, Smt. Atri became the owner of the l/4th share in the two houses on the death of Ganeshmal and the balance 3/4th share is owned by Amarchand. Sagarmal fil...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Chhotki Vs. Chandra Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Raj32
Modi, J.1. This second appeal has been placed before this Bench on a reference by one of us sitting singly, as it raises an important question relating to the applicability of Section 214 of the Jaipur. Succession Act, 1943, (Act No. LI of 1943) which for all practical purposes is in the same terms as Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (No. XXXIX of 1925).2. The material facts leading up to the present reference may shortly be stated as follows. On the 14th July, 1947. Udai Bux husband of Mst. Chhotki, the appellant before this Court, filed a suit against the defendant respondent for the recovery of Rs. 675/- on the footing of a Khata dated the 14th July, 1944, for a sum of Rs. 800/-which is alleged to have been executed by the latter in favour of the said Udai Prakash. It was admitted by the plaintiff that a sum of Rs. 125/-had been repaid by the defendant to the former on account of the khata in question, with the result that the balance of Rs. 675/- only remained outstan...
Tag this Judgment!Uttamchand Vs. Mohandas
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Raj50
C.B. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City dated 25th October, 1962 affirming the judgment and decree of the Munsif, Jaipur City East dated 28th February, 1962. 2. The respondent who is a minor filed the presentsuit through his next friend on 9th March, 1961 for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts and injunction against the appellant on the basis of an agreementof partnership dated 31st January, 1959. The plaintiff inthe suit also claimed delivery of possession of the shopin which the business of partnership according to him, wasbeing carried on. It was alleged in paragraph 1 of the plaint that the plaintiff was owner of shop No. 166 situate in Bapu Bazar, Jaipur. It was then alleged that the guardian of the plain-tiff entered into an agreement of partnership for carrying on the business of manufacturing Uttam Sewing Machines with the defendant on 31st January, 1959 and a deed of partn...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »