Rajasthan Court October 1966 Judgments
Ganesh Mal and anr. Vs. Meghraj and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj283
I.M. Modi, J.1. This is a civil regular second appeal by the defendants Ganeshmal and Tarachand alias Otmal against an order of the learned Civil Judge, Sirohi, dated the 1st March, 1961, by which he set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiffs suit as barred by time and remanded it back to the Munsiff for disposing of it on the merits.2. This was, to start with, a simple suit under Order 21 Rule 63 C. P. C. which was instituted in the Court of the Munsiff Sirohi on the 18th July, 1957, and has had a chequered history principally because it has been mishandled by the parties and the Courts below and the Court of first appeal in particular (Mr. Sardar Singh Civil Judge Sirohi). The plaintiff Nathmal and his son Meghraj alias Maganlal obtained a money decree against defendant No. 3 Pratapchand who is respondent No. 2 in this appeal and took out execution thereof. They attached two houses alleging them to be of the judgment-debtor Pratapchand, the descrip...
Tag this Judgment!Champa Lal and ors. Vs. Rameshwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj233
ORDERJagat Narayan, J. 1. This is a revision application by the defendants against an order of the Civil Judge, Pali, holding that a sale-deed executed by the Chairman, Municipal Board. Pali, for Rs. 99/- in favour of the plaintiff is not inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, because the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act do not apply to it as it is a transfer covered by Section 2 of the Government Grants Act 1895. The revision application has been opposed on behalf of the plaintiff. 2. The first contention on behalf of the applicants is that the Government Grants Act 1895 is no longer applicable to Rajasthan. Section 1(2) of the Act as it stands today reads as follows: 'It extends to the whole of India except the territories which immediately before 1-11-56 were comprised in Part B States.'3. Rajasthan was a Part B State before 1st November 1956. 4. The above Sub-section stood as follows before it was adapted under the Adaptation of Laws (No. 2) Order 1956: 'It ex...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ladhi Bai Vs. Thakur Shriji and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Raj41
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31st July, 1961 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, setting aside the judgment of the Munsiff, Jaipur District, Jaipur in a suit for possession and mesne profits of the disputed shop.2. The plaint was filed in this case jointly by three persons Kesarlal, Maganlal and Mst. Ladhi Bai. Kesarlal claimed himself to be the adopted son of Chhaganlal, while Maganlal joined as one, who claimed the succession to the property of Chhaganlal after the death of Mst. Godawari Bai, widow of Chhaganlal and Mst. Ladhi Bai as the daughter of Chhaganlal. The disputed shop was rented out by Mst. Godawari Bai in her life time to Sunderlal, who happened to be the manager of the temple of Beespanthiyan. It is alleged that Sunderlal did not pay any rent to Mst. Godawari Bai till her death, and, therefore, after Goda-wari's death, a notice was served on defendant Sunderlal by Kesarlal to pay the rent to h...
Tag this Judgment!Fateh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-1966
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ54Raj
Modi, J.1. This is a writ petition by Fateh Chand under Article 226 of the Constitution and arises under the following circumstances:The petitioner was first appointed as a clerk on work-charge basis in motor section of the office of the Executive Engineer, Water works, Jaipur, by an order dated 9 May 1952. Thereafter, by order dated 2 February 1955, he was appointed a lower division clerk in the same office as a temporary measure for a period of six months in the first instance with effect from 1 January 1955, against a permanent vacancy. He continued to ho]d this appointment until 1 March 1965. On 2 March 1965, he was served with a notice by the Chief Engineer (Health), Rajasthan, that his services were to be terminated with effect from one month of the issue of this letter. The reason for this termination was that the petitioner had failed to pass two departmental examinations for the recruitment of lower division clerks, first in June 1964 and the second in November 1964. Thereupon...
Tag this Judgment!Somdatta Vs. Abdul Rashid
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Raj45
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by the plaintiff against an order of the Munsiff, Gangapur holding that the suit pronote is not properly stamped in as much as it bears an adhesive stamp of 10 nP. instead of an impressed stamp.2. Under Article 19 of Schedule 1 to the Stamp Act a pro-note upto Rs. 250 in value payable on demand is to be stamped with a stamp of 10 nP. When the value exceeds Rs. 250 but does not exceed Rs. 1000 it is to be stamped with a stamp of 15 nP. If the value exceeds Rs. 1000 it is to be stamped with a stamp of 25 nP. Under Section 11(a) of the Stamp Act instruments chargeable with duty not exceeding 10 nP. (except parts of bills of exchange payable otherwise than on demand and drawn in sets) may be stamped with adhesive stamps. The promissory note in suit is of the value of Rs. 150. It is chargeable with stamp duty of 10 np. Under Section 11(a) of the Stamp Act, it can be stamped with adhesive stamps.3. Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules ru...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Hari Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Raj5; [1967]65ITR267(Raj)
Kan Singh, J. 1. We have before us a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bombay Bench 'B' under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the following three questions have been referred to us with the statement of the case :--'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proper status to be taken in the Income-tax assessment on the assessee is Individual or Hindu Undivided Family ? (2) Whether on the facts here, with reference to the house properties, income from which are assessed here, Section 9(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was properly applied? (3) Whether the custom of impartibility is invalid on the ground of its being discriminatory so as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India?' 2. Both the learned counsel, for the assessee and the Department, however, agreed that the fate of the case turns on the determination of the first question and accordingly they addressed us only on that question. They also agreed that the other ...
Tag this Judgment!Deokishan Vs. Jagan Nath and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj148
ORDERJagat Narayan, J. 1. This is a revision application by the auction purchaser against an order of the appellate court setting aside an auction sale. The application has been contested on behalf of the judgment-debtor. 2. Jagan Nath mortgaged a house in favour or Smt. Harkha. A decree was passed in favour of four of her legal representatives including Smt. Mohini, who filed an execution application claiming one-third the decretal amount as her share. The judgment-debtor filed an objection on 22-10-62 in which various allegations were made. This objection was dismissed after a hearing on 1-2-63 and notice under Order 21, Rule 66 was issued. Ultimately on 19-10-63 it was ordered that the property be sold on 4th, 5th and 6th December 1963. 3. On 6th December 1963 the judgment debtor moved an application before the executing court stating that the share of the decree holder was one-fourth and praying for the postponement of the sale in order to enable him to make arrangement to obtain m...
Tag this Judgment!Sachida Nand Vs. Mangi Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Raj1
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. This is a miscellaneous appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (ii), C. P. C. against a judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Gangapur remanding a. suit under Order 41, Rule 23 C. P C 2. One Ram Chander was the owner of a shop. Ram Chander's descendants formed a joint Hindu family and owned this shop in undivided shares. Ghisa and his sons owned half share in this undivided shop which was sold in execution of a decree of Johrilal at an auction sale. This half undivided share of the shop was purchased by Ghudmal. A sale certificate was issued in his favour on 14-8-39 and symbolic possession was delivered to him under Order 21, Rule 35 (2) and Order 21. Rule 96 on 11-9-39 Ghudmal's sons Mangi Lal and Prahalad Kumar instituted the present suit for partition of the shop and for delivery of possession to them over their half share after partition on 22-7 59 Kanchan and Manohari who owned one-fourth of the shop and Sachida Nand and Babulal who owned one fourth were impleaded is def...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›