Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1968Raj182
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This appeal arises from the appellate judgment and decree of the District Judge of Bharatpur, dated April18, 1961.2. The controversy dates back to September 16, 1916 when Basudeo father of plaintiffs Narainlal and Kuhjilal, mortgaged a half portion of the suit house and a 'nohra' situated in Deeg, to defendant Sheoprasad. While the half portion of the house war mortgaged for Rs. 200/-, the 'nohra' was mortgaged for Rs 250/-, with interest, and thus the mortgage money was Rs. 450/-. It was a mortgage with possession The deed of mortgage was registered on September 19, 1916. After Badudeo's death, his two sons, the plaintiffs, instituted the present suit on August 30, 1954 for redemption of the half portion of the house. They pleaded that the mortgagee had realised so much money in the meantime, from the mortgaged property, that no part of it remained unpaid. It was therefore prayed that an account may be taken from the defendants and that if any amount was found paya...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1968Raj187
Kan Singh, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants-appellants under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act against an order of the District Judge, Bikaner, dated 8-9-67 whereby the learned District Judge dismissed the three identical applications filed by the defendants-appellants for staying the suit filed against them by the plaintiffs-respondents in accordance with Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The facts relevant for the purposes of disposing this appeal are briefly these:2. Plaintiff-respondent Insaf Ali through his next friend filed a suit against the defendants-appellants for realising Rs. 12,342,50 paise. The plaint was presented in the court of the learned District Judge on 26-7-67 and 25-8-67 was fixed for the film of the written statement. Summonses were issued by the Court on 5-8-67 and they were served on the defendants on 13-8-67. On 25-8-67, that is, the date of hearing fixed for the filing of the written statement one Shri Sampatlal, Advocate appeared for the defendants and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1968Raj188
ORDER43. We accordingly allow all these writ petitions in part and declare: that Sub-section (6) of Section 22 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, is bad and accordingly we strike it down.44. We order that the respondents shall forthwith return the goods which are locked in the three almirahs and the rooms in the premises of Messrs. Hiralal Chhaganlal to persons from whose possession they were seized or taken under control by the respondents. The respondents shall, however, be free to inspect the goods while returning them, but without impairing the rights of the petitioners to be in exclusive possession thereof or to otherwise dispose them of, or carry on their business in relation thereto. The respondents shall also return the account books, files and other documents to petitioners Messrs. Hiralal Chhaganlal and Messrs. Kirti Jewellers respectively within three weeks from today. In the meantime it will, however, be open to the respondents to put their identification marks or their ...
Tag this Judgment!