Rajasthan Court July 1969 Judgments
Dhannalal and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN375
L.S. Mehta, J.1. Accused Dhannalal, Ramlal, Surajmal and Devilal were challaned in the court of Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Bundi, for trial under Section 379, I.P.C. It is alleged that the accused committed theft in respect of 'Babul wood belonging to the complainant Jagannath, After necessary proceedings the accused persons were discharged by the trial court by its judgment dated January 24, 1967. Both the parties, i.e., the complainant Jagannath and the accused persons were directed by the court to approach appropriate civil court and get their respective claims relating to the property in dispute settled. Against this order, an appeal was filed by the accused Dhannalal and others in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi, praying that the 'Babul' wood should be ordered to be restored to them, as the same had been seized from their possession. The complainant did not file any appeal. Learned Judge observed in his judment that the wood would deteriorate till the disposal of...
Tag this Judgment!Jadulal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN398
B.P. Beri, J.1. This is an application by way of revision directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, dated the 15th March, 1969, whereby he ordered the prosecution of the petitioner under sections 380 and 457 I.P.C.2. The facts which lead up to this application, briefly stated, are these, Kanhiyalal Mahajan lodged a report in the police station, Atru, that in between the night of the 6th and 7th June, 1961, offences of house breaking and theft were committed in his house. The police submitted a report against four parsons namely Kanhiyalal, Manaklal, Ratanlal and Prabhulal under sections 380, 457 and 120B I.P.C. Jadulal petitioner before me, was also involved in this theft but he had turned an approver and the Additional District Magistrate, Kota, tendered pardon to Jadulal under the provisions of Section 337 Cr.P.C. Jadulal was examined by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as a witness, and on the basis of evidence including that of Jadulal, all the four persons m...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Dulhi Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN319
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by the plaintiff against an order of the Additional District Judge, Jhalawar, holding that the Shah Jog Hundi on which the suit is based is inadmissible in evidence as it is not properly stamped.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties & am satisfied that the decision is erroneous.3 A Shah Jog Hundi is only payable to a Shah namely a man of worth and substance known in the Bazar. The Hundi in suit short of superfluous verbiage runs as follows:Kanhaiya Lal Dulichand of Manohar Thana conveys his greetings to Kanhaiya Lal Dulichand of Manohar Thana. We have deposited the sum of Rs 3 000/- for this Hundi with Kanahaiyalal Shrichand of Manohar Thana. Please pay to a Shah in accordance with the custom with regard to Shah Jog Hundis on Asad Badi 13/S. 2014.Sd/- Dulichand7-5-67This Hundi was thus payable after a stated period. It was only payable to a Shah.3. The above Hundi is not a bill of exchange as defined under Section 5 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Chandi and ors. Vs. Gangaram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN489
L.S. Mehta, J.1. By his judgment, dated May 26, 1966, learned Sessions Judge Jaipur District, Jaipur, convicted Gangaram. Gheesha s/o Daula; Parsia, Chhotia, and Harchand under Section 304, part II, read with Section 149, I.P.C, and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for three years each. The above accused were further held guilty under Section 147, Penal Code, and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Phulia, Sagaria, Chandgi, and Sunda were convicted under Section 147, I.P.C, and each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Each of the four accused was also found guilty and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323, read with Section 149, I.P.C. The sentences on the two counts were ordered to run concurrently. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the res...
Tag this Judgment!Jodhraj Vs. Suleman
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN355
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for eviction from a shop. The tenancy is admitted.2. The suit for eviction is based on two grounds, viz. (1) default on the part of the tenant in paying rent; and (2) reasonable and bonafide personal necessity of the landlord. Both the lower courts have accepted the plaintiff's version that the shop in question is required by the plaintiff for his son. who wished to carry on business in that shop. Learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed this finding on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish his reasonable and bonafide personal necessity & there is a clear variance between pleading & proof. He has, therefore, contended that the finding of the learned District Judge on this point is liable to be set aside.3. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent, while supporting the finding of the learned District Judge on the question of personal necessity has further contended that th...
Tag this Judgment!Padam Singh and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN374
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is revision application under Section 18(3) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act against a reference made by the Collector S of the District.2. The sole ground on which the reference has been challenged is that the Collector of the district did not make the award in this case and therefore he had no jnrisdiction to make the reference.3. The land has been acquired for the District Police & the Superintendent of the Police of the district on behalf of the Police Department made a written application to the Collector of the district asking him to make a reference to the District Court to the determination of the amount of compensation.4. The award in this case was not made by the Collector of the district, but it was made by one Shri M.R. Dhariwal, an officer specially appointed by the Government to perform the functions of a Collector under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. Section 18(1) runs as follows:18. Reference to Court. - (1) The Government department o...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Niwas Vs. Pokarram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN303
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for the redemption of mortgage and in the alternative for a decree for specific performance.2 The facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated within a narrow compass. The property in question which consists of a house, two lime kilns and an open plot of land measuring 14,300 sq. yds, is situated in village Ghandawal. Teshil Sojat. This property originally belonged to respondent No. 3 Gulab Singh,, who, according to the plaintiff Ramniwas (appellant) mortgaged it by conditional sale by the mortgage deed dated 4-1-1900 for a sum of Rs. 4000/- with the defendant-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 Pokar Ram and Bhanwarlal. One of the conditions incorporated in this alleged mortgage deed is that the mortgagor i.e. Gulabsingh will have a right to have the property in question resold to him on payment of Rs. 4000/- and interest thereon, within one year from the date of the execution of the deed. It was further stated that in ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijai Raj Vs. Bhanwari Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN287
Jagat Narayan, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken that no miscellaneous appeal lies against the order of remand as it is not under Order 41, Rule 23 C.P. C. The reply is that as an order for the refund of court fee has been made, an appeal is maintainable. Reliance is placed on Ratan Raj V. Kripashankar ILR (195555) 55 Raj. 895. That decision is not applicable as this order does not purport to be under Order 41, Rule 23 C.P.C. The preliminary objection is upheld. But on the prayer of the learned Counsel for the appellant, this is treated as a revision application.2. The only provision for remanding a case in appeal is contained in Order 41, Rule 23 C.P.C., which is not applicable to the present case as the trial court decided all issues and recorded its findings on all of them. The judgment of the trial court is in accordance with Order 20, Rule 4(2) C.P.C. which lays down that the judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decisi...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Singh and ors. Vs. Mohan Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN420
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. The appeal and the cross-objection in this case arise out of the appellate judgment and decree of District Judge, Alwar, dated January 24, 1961, in circumstances to be stated presently. Smt. Kalawati, the deferdant, died during the pendency of the first appeal and her legal representatives were brought on the record in time.2. Smt. Kalawati became a widow at a very early age. She owned some movable and immovable properties in Alwar and Agra, including a residential house in Alwar. Plaintiff Mohanlal belonged to her caste and 'gotra'. He shifted to her house with his family sometime in 1928 when she was in her early twenties. The plaintiff claimed that he did so for the purpose of providing maintenance and protection to her and that he amply fulfilled this requirement so that out of love and affection Smt. Kalawati executed a registered will (Ex. 1) on November 5, 1934, bequeathingher residential house in Alwar to him along with the plot of land attached to it. The p...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Singh and ors. Vs. Mohanlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN530
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. The appeal and the cross-objection in the case arise out of the appellate judgement and decree of District Judge, Alwar, dated January 24, 1961, in circumstance to be stated presently. Smt. Kalawati, the defendan, died during the the pendency of the first appeal and her legal representatives were brought on the record in time.2. Smt. Kalawati became a widow at a very early age. She owned some movable and immovable properties in alwar and Agra. including a residential house in Alwar. Plaintiff Mohanlal belonged to her caste and 'gotra'. He shifted to her house with whole family sometime in 1928 when she was in her early twenties. The plaintiff claimed that he did so for the purpose of providing maintenance and protection to her and that he amply fulfiled this requirement so that out of love and affection Smt. Kalawati executed a registered will (Ex. 1) on November 5 1034, bequeathing her residential house in Alwar to him along with the plot of land attached to it. Th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »