Rajasthan Court November 1970 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.
Smt. Mira Bai Vs. Jai Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Raj303; 1970(3)WLN724
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal arising out of a suit for redemption of mortgage of a house situated in village Tantati District Aimer. 2. The plaintiffs' case is that their ancestor Teipal made a usufructuary mortgage of the house in question for Rs. 400/ in favour of Nandlal and Nahar Singh ancestors of the defendants by a registered mortgage deed dated 16-2-1960 and that they were entitled to redeem the same on payment of the principal sum of Rs. 400/-, They also claimed mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month from the date of suit till the delivery of possession of the house to them. The defendants denied the alleged mortgage. The learned Munsiff, Kekri held that the alleged mortgage was not proved, & consequently dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiffs the judgment and decree by the trial court were upheld by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer. Consequently, the plaintiffs have come in second appeal to this Court. 3. Both the learned co...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramdevia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN695
L.S. Mehta, J.1. On February 13, 1970, the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector, Sikar, submitted a complaint under Section 109, Criminal Procedure Code, to the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikar. The complaint averred that Head Constable Hanuman Singh and Foot Constable Onar Singh spotted one person, Ramdevla Meena, who was hiding himself under suspicious circumstances behind a wooden shop near Chandpole Gate Bus Stand. On his having been questioned, he tried to run away. He was, however, apprehended with the help of one Dalai Jat. On inquiry he first mentioned his name as Rawtia Chejara of Sikar. He further told the police that he was returning home after seeing a cinema show and that he sat behind the wood in shop for urinating. Consequently it was found that that person was Ramdevla Meena. At the time of the arrest a bunch of keys was recovered from his possession. Ramdevia was arrested by the police on suspicion that there was every likelihood of the commission of a cognizable off...
Sampat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN739
L.S. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner Sampatsingh has moved this Court for grant of a writ of habeas corpus impugning the order of the District Magistrate, Bhilwara dated 28th September, 1970 for his detention under Section 3(2) of the Rajasthan Prevention Detention Ordinance, 1970 (Ordinance No. 6 of 1970), hereinafter to be referred as the Ordinance, for, allegedly acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the district of Bhilwara. The order has been placed on record as Ex. 1.2. On 2nd of October, 1970 the learned District Magistrate furnished the grounds of the petitioner's detention to him. It appears that the Government had approved the order on 7th October, 1970. On 6th November, 1970 this petition was lodged and it was admitted on the same day. By a supplementary application dated 9th November, 1970 the learned counsel for the petitioner; sought permission to raise certain additional grounds to challenge the vires of Section 6(a) of the Ordinance. On 12th No...
M.L. Goyal and ors. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1970
Reported in: 1972WLN469
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. It is admitted that the facts relating to writ petitions No. 340 of 1967 & No. 57 of 1969 are quite similar questions of law that arise in them because both the petitioners were recruited to the Rajasthan Administrative Service by a common competitive examination held in 1956 under the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954. The petitioner in writ petition No. 51 of 1969 was recruited by the competitive examination held in 1959 All the three petitioners may therefore be said to be 'regular recruits', and I shall refer to them as such during the course of this judgment. The facts relating to writ petition No. 51 of 1969 are common with the other two petitions to a large extent. The three petitions have therefore been argued together by the learned Counsel for the parties and I shall, at their instance, deal with them by a single judgment as they are virtually companion petitions raising common questions of fact and law.2. The contentions of the petitioners, and...
Mohammad Subhan Vs. Dr. MisbahuddIn Ahmad and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-1970
Reported in: 1970(3)WLN706
C.B. Bhargava, J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree dated 10th December, 1958, of the District Judge, Kota.2. Rahim Bux and Mohammed Subhan originally instituted the suit for partition of immovable properties mentioned in Para 4(15, (2) and (3) in the plaint situated in the city of Kota. Mohammed Sobhan's name was subsequently removed from the array of plaintiffs and the suit continued at the instance of Rahim Bux alone. During the pendency of this appeal, Rahimbux died and Mohammed Subhan was substituted as his legal representative vide order of this Court dated 21st January, 1965. Plaintiff's case is that his ancestor Ibrahim had seven sons and the suit properties were acquired by them with their joint earnings. It is alleged that the parties were originally Hindu Rajputs but were subsequently converted to Muslim religion, but a custom still prevails among them that a female does not get any share in the property of the deceased. It is alleged that Yasin one of the so...
Jagjivansingh and ors. Vs. Ahmed Bux and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Raj235; 1970(3)WLN683
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. The suit out of which this second appeal by the plaintiffs arises, was instituted on 18-8-1960 in the Court of Munsiff, Jalore for possession of a plot of land, situated in the town of Jalore. 2. The plaintiffs' case is that the plaintiff No. 1. Jagjivansingh and Mangilal father of plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 purchased this land from one Baghsinsh by a registered sale deed Ex. 1 dated 29-10-1958 for Rs. 400/-. This plot of land, according to the plaintiffs, originally belonged to the Government which had granted a 'patta' of the same to Baghsingh on 17-9-1955 (Ex. 2). The plaintiffs' case is that they got possession of the land from Baghsingh on the day they purchased the same but they permitted the defendant Ahmed Bux to occupy it on their behalf. It was stated that when the plaintiffs wanted to set back possession of the land, the defendant Ahmed Bux evaded to hand over the possession of the land to the plaintiffs, and ultimately when the plaintiffs served a notice on Ah...
Pannalal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1970
Reported in: 1972WLN988
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. This writ petition of Pannalal arises out of the following circumstances:2. Petitioner Pannalal had advanced a loan to one Ashraf Ali who, after the partition of the country, migrated to Pakistan leaving behind him three houses properties in the town of Ajmer Petitioner had obtained a decree on 22nd August, 1948, of Rs. 4,000/- with 3 percent interest against Ashraf Ali from the court of the Sub-Judge, First Class, Ajmer, in Civil Suit No. 436 of 1948. On 12th of September, 1949, the petitioner registered this third party claim with the Assistant Custodian of the erstwhile State of Ajmer for the payment of the decretal amount and the same was registered vide the letters of the Assistant Custodian (Anneuxre 2) and (Annexure 3) dated 24th of July. 1951 and 21st of September, 1951, respectively. Thereafter it so appears that the Assistant Custodian did not take any proceedings to pay off the claim of the petitioner as registered with him under Rule 22 of the Administratio...
Vyas Gopichand Vs. Mattoo Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Raj237
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for injunction. 2. The houses of the parties and some other persons are situated in the same compound in the city of Jaipur. In order to understand the nature of the dispute arising between the parties it may be useful to refer to the plan Ex. 1 filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's house is shown in the plan in yellow colour, and the defendant Harinarain's house has been shown in blue colour. It may be stated here that the defendant Harinarain died during the pendency of this litigation and is now represented by his heirs who are respondents Nos. 1 to 7 before me. The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint is that the 'Tibara' shown with the mark 'G' in the plan is the joint property of the parties, and that the portion marked 'H' contiguous to 'G' towards the west is common to the parties and Bharatmal.It was alleged that on 13-11-1957 the defendant raised a wall between the portions 'G' and 'H' and put ...
Smt. Gomti and ors. Vs. Rameshwardas and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Raj211; 1970(3)WLN626
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This D.B. Civil regular first appeal has been referred for decision to the Full Bench by a Division Bench as the learned Judges constituting it were of the opinion that the following observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in Jetharam v. Hazarimal, ILR (1951) 1 Raj 417 = (AIR 1952 Raj 28), was not a correct interpretation of the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Mohammed Ewaz v. Brijlal, (1876) 4 Ind App 166 (PC):--'On the other hand, the case of Mohammed Ewaz v. Brijlall, is an authority to the contrary. It was held in that case that where the document was executed by two or more persons and some of them admitted execution while others denied it, the document should be registered as to the persons admitting the execution and it would be effective against the persons on whose instance the document was registered.'The appeal arises out of a suit for the enforcement of a mortgage by the sale of the mortgaged properties instituted by Muk...
Gulab Devi Vs. Bhagwan Sahai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Raj240; 1970(3)WLN616
ORDERP.N. Shinghal, J.1. This revision, application of the plaintiff is directed against the order of Additional Munsiff No. 1, Jaipur City, dated May 27, 1968, by which he refused to permit the plaintiff's learned counsel to examine, in evidence, the person holding the power of attorney of the plaintiff, and directed that the plaintiff should record her own statement in support of her claim in the suit.2. The plaintiff feels aggrieved on the ground that it was not open to the trial Court to refuse to examine her witness, particularly when he is her husband and holds her power of attorney and is well acquainted with the facts of the case. It is also her grievance that the Munsiff has taken it upon himself to decide who will be examined as her witness.3. Order 18, Rule 1, Civil P. C. gives the plaintiff the right to lead her evidence, and this had to be so in the present case as the proceedings were ex parte so that there was no dispute about the plaintiff's right to begin. As such it w...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »