Rajasthan Court July 1969 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Panna Lal Vs. Balbir Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN284
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is a miscellaneous appeal by one of the tenants against an order of remand passed by the appellante court.2. The plaintiff-landlords brought a suit for ejectment against Pannalal, appellant and the other tenant Sanwalsingh, respondent No. 14, on 3. 4. 65, on the ground of default in the payment of rent under Section 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan. Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act. Summons of the suit was served on Pannalal appellant on 7.5.65 and on Sanwalsingh, respondent, on 29.4.65. The date of first hearing in the suit was 28.7.65. On 9.6.65. Act No. 12 of 1965 came into force. By this Act Section 13 was amended and another Section 13-A was added. Section 13 (4) runs as follows:In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1), with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that sub-section, the tenant shall, on the first day of hearing or on or before such date as the court may, on an application made to it, fix i...
Ayub and ors. Vs. Bhanwarchand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN288
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that the plot of land in dispute situated in Nagaur belongs to the plaintiffs, and also for possession of the same.2. The plaintiffs, who are the followers of 'Khatargachh' sect of Nagaur through their trustees Bhanuar Chand and others filed the suit in the court of civil Judge, Nagaur on 20.3.1955 alleging that the plot in question belonged originally to one Ibrahim Kheradi, and others, who sold the same to Chadwa Gulani Mohammed, Imam Bux etc. for Rs. 125/- on Maha Badi 13, 8. 1881 by a sale deed which has been placed on the record and marked Ex. 6 Gulam Mohammad and others obtained a 'Patta' of this land in their names, a copy of which also has been placed on the record by the plaintiffs and has been marked Ex. 2. The plaintiffs go on to state that on Asoj Badi 9.8.1901 Gulam Mohammad and others mortgaged this plot with possession in favour of Guran Heerachand; Roopchand and Khemchand of 'khat...
S.N. Misra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN293
Kan Singh, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner Shri S.N. Misra, who was at the relevant time a member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service, is questioning the validity of the order of his dismissal No. F. 1(25) Apptts. (A. III) 63 dated 22-8-1966 passed by the Government and he has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order. The relevant facts may briefly be stated as follows.The petitioner who was a resident of the former State of Jaipur joined the service of that State in the State Army in 1940 as an Officer Cadet. He subsequently came to be promoted as a Major and was eventually transferred on the Civil side. There after the petitioner came to be posted as an Under Secretary to the Government. On the formation of Rajasthan the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Director of Rehabilitation and when the R.A.S Cadre was formed he was taken on the R.A.S. Cadre, He served on various posts. At the material time relating to which discip...
Dharam Chand Vs. Chhaju and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN281
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this second appeal in a suit for declaration and injunction.2. The dispute between the parties pertains to a 'Gwada' situated in village Milikpur, District Alwar. The plaintiffs case is that he is the owner of this 'Gwada' and is also in possession of the same. However in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC. the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Behror declared the possession of the defendants on this 'Gwarda'. Thereafter the plaintiff filed the present suit proving that he may be declared the owner of this 'Gwada' and since he was in possession of the same the defendants may be restrained from interfering with his possession by grant of a perpetual injunction against them. The defendants denied the plaintiff's claim and asserted their own right to the 'Gwada' in question. After recording the evidence of the parties the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were proved to be the owners of the 'Gwada' and were also in possession of the ...
Bhagwat Prasad Vs. Dwarka Prasad and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN351
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The defendant Bhagwat Prasad has filed this second appeal from the judgment and decree by the District Judge, Bharatpur dated 8-11-1966 by which the plaintiff-respondent's suit for ejectment from the shop in dispute was decreed.2. Plaintiff-respondent Dwarka Prasad leased out the shop in question situated in Deeg on 28-3-1955 to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-, and he filed the present suit in the Court of Munsiff, Deeg on 18-5-1965 for eviction on two grounds viz that he required the shop in question for his own reasonable and bonafide necessity &that; the defendant had sublet the shop in question to one Gulab and Ishardas. The defendant denied the allegations regarding personal necessity of the landlord as well as subletting. After recording the evidence of the parties the trial court held that neither the reasonable and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff had been established, nor it was proved that the defendant had sublet the shop in question to either...
Mohan Lal and anr. Vs. Bhanwar Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN247
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is an execution first appeal by the sureties.2. On behalf of the appellants two points were urged. Both these contentions were raised before the executing court and were overruled by it. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants I am of the opinion that the decision of the court below is correct. When the sureties executed the surety bond then the judgment debtor owned some machinery which had been attached in the execution of the decree. It was subsequently sold for Rs. 4, 200/- by an auction sale. Section 141 of the Contract Act runs as follows:Surety's right to benefit of creditor's securities. - A surety is entitled to the benefit of every security which the creditor has against the principal debtor at the time when the contract of suretyship is entered into, whether the surety knows of the existence of such security or not; and, if the creditor loses or, without the consent of the surety parts with such security, the surety is discharged to the e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›