Rajasthan Court July 1964 Judgments
Nemi Chand and ors. Vs. Harak Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj132
ORDERP.N. Shinghal, J.1. These two second appeals arise from a single judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Pali dated May 23, 1958 and will therefore be disposed of together. The history of the dispute which dates back to S. 1984 may be stated briefly.2. The Jagir of Meda was situated in the Sojat pargana of the former Jodhpur State and Sewaj was one of the villages Included in that Jagir. The Thikana gave the 'ijara' of village Sewaj to Magni Ram, Har Lal Ratan Khan and Noor Khan, for a period of 10 years, or Sawan Bad 1 S. 1984. The Ijaradars, however, assigned the 'ijara' to Heera Chand for the same period on payment of Rs. 4,525/-per year. This Heera Chand held the 'ijara' for a period of about 5 years and then assigned it to Mishri Mal defendant No. 1 and Rawat Singh defendant No. 2 for the period from Sawan Sud 1 S. 1989 to Asadh Sud 15 S. 1993 on payment of Rs. 4,525/-per year. Ex. P.5 is the deed of assignment and is dated April 20, 1933. It was agreed in terms ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. LaxminaraIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj5
Bhandari, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the State in which the trial magistrate has acquitted Laxmi Narain respondent of an offence under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Ordinance'). The other respondents in this appeal have been acquitted under Section 4 of the Ordinance.2. The prosecution case is that on 20th June 1960 Shri I.N. Gupta on receiving credible information issued a warrant under Section 5 of the Ordinance authorising Shri Vijay Bahadur, Station House Officer, Bhimganj Mandi, Kota with his subordinate officers to enter the shop of Shri Laxmi Narain and to seize all instruments of gaming, moneys, articles etc., reasonably suspected to be used for the purpose of gaming which may be found there. Shri I.N. Gupta purported to have signed the warrant as Superintendent of Police, Kota District, On the strength of this warrant Shri Vijay Bahadur entered the hotel of Laxmi Narain and found that except the respondent Laxmi Na...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bhanwari Devi and ors. Vs. Sohan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj79
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This an execution second appeal by the legal representatives of Dulichand judgment-debtor against an order of the executing court dismissing their application for setting aside an execution sale which was confirmed on appeal by the District Judge, Biksner.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are these. On 24-9-56 a decree for Rs. 9,577-8-0 together with costs and future interest was passed against Duli Chand in favour of the decree-holder-respondent. He put this decree into execution on 21-11-58. On 17-11-58 the total amount due against the judgment-debtor under the decree came to Rs. 14,6574-0. It was prayed that the decree be executed by the attachment and sale of a house and! a Nohra belonging to the judgment-debtor situated in village Birasar. These two properties were attached in execution of this decree and were put to sale on 17-5-61. On 12-5-61 the executing court granted permission to the decree-holder to bid under Order 21 Rule 72, C. P C....
Tag this Judgment!Nathudan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj274
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. This is a reference by the Munsif, Jalore under Section 113, C. P. C.2. One Nathudan filed an application before him under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief oi Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957, for determination of his 'debt'. His liabilities include some loan made to him by the State Government, under Section 4(j) of the Act, the provisions of which are not applicable to 'any other sum of money dueto Government by way of or towards payment of a loan'. It is contended that this provision is void as it is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.3. The learned Advocate General concedes that it is so hit.4. In Mukanchand v. Inder Singh, ILR (1959)9 Raj 547 a Division Bench of this Court held that Section 2(e) of the Rajasthan Jagirdars' Debt Deduction Act was hit by Article 14 of the. Constitution. This part of the judgment was upheld by their Lordships of the Supreme Court (State of Rajasthan v. Mukanchand, Civil Appeal No. 507 of 1061 D/- 26-2-64 : (AIR 1964 SC 163...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Dutt and anr. Vs. Smt. Mohani Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj279
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by Narayan Dutt and Krishna Dutt against an order of the District Judge, Pali.2. The applicants presented a pauper application before the District Judge on 2-5-64 and along with that application filed another application praying for an injunction against the respondents Smt. Mohani Devi and Shivdutt. The application for injunction was dismissed on the ground that it could not be granted till the suit was registered after the disposal of the pauper application.3. On behalf of the applicants it is asserted that the view taken by the learned District Judge is erroneous. Reliance is placed on the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Matuki Mistry v. Kamakhya Prasad, AIR 1958 Pat 264 (FB). A contrary view was taken in Thimmayya v. Sadasivappa, AIR 1952 Mys 76 and Purna Chandra v. Tara Prosad, AIR 1917 Cal 852. The majority of the High Courts have however taken the view which was taken by the learned Judge of the Patna High Co...
Tag this Judgment!Sumer Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj2
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. This is an appeal by one Sumer Chand against an order of the District Judge, Balotra refusing to grant Letters of Administration of certain properties which were in the possession of Kanmal and his widow Smt. Shanta. 2. One Fatendra Suri was the Yati of a Jain Upasara. He had two disciples Himmat Mal and Nemichand. On the death of Fatendra Suri, Himmatmal succeeded him. Kanmal was the disciple of Himmatmal and succeeded him. Kanmal married Smt. Shanta after succeeding to the properties of the Upasara. Smt. Shanta was murdered on 4-4-1961 sometime after the death of Kanmal. After her murder, the present application for Letters of Administration was made by Sumer Chand who is a disciple of Nemichand, He claimed a right to succeed to the Upasara properties on account of being a disciple of Himmatmal's Gurubhai Nemichand. 3. The application was opposed by the State on the ground that Kanmal ceased to be a Yati on his marriage to Smt. Shanta and succession to Kanmal the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›