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.
Brijmohan Singh and ors. Vs. Bhagwatsingh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Raj255; 1970(3)WLN622
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff Heeralal (who died during the pendency of this litigation and is now represented by the appellants, his heirs) ior Rs. 500/- on account of compensation for failure to return a 500 bore sun alleged to have been lent by the plaintiff to the defendant's father Shri Surner-singh the then Maharaia of Thikana Indergarh. The plaintiff's case, in short was that sometime in 1941-42 he handed over a 500 bore gun belonging to him to Shri Sumer Singh for 'Shikar'. In the course of hunt a man was accidentaly killed with the result that a criminal case was registered against Shri Sumersingh as well as his companions, who had accompanied him for the sport, and the plaintiff's gun was also confiscated by the Government of Madhya Pradesh in whose territory the accident had taken place. The gun was ultimately returned by the Government sometime in 1950 by which time Shri Sumer Singh had expired. His estate ...
Chand Mal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN658
L.S. Mehta, J.1. The prosecution story succinctly put is that Smt. Nazar Bai mother of Shankerlal, P.W. 11, had become widow more than 42 year ago. She was residing separetely from her son in the town of Chittor. On October 24, 1964, 'Karan-Chowth' festival occurred. On that occasion Mst. Nazar Bai was invited to dinner by her cousin brother Ramchandra, P.W. 23 Ramchandra s daughter, aged 10 years, approached Her that day at about 4.30 P.m. and extended invitation to her. Nazar Bai save her 2 paise as a taken of her love and told her that she would certainly visit her house At that time the accused Chandmal was present there. Sometime later Nazir Bai left her house to go to RamChandra's place. She was followed by Ghandmal Nazar Bai, it appears, was done to death on her host's residence. As she was living separately from her son, none bothered for her for about a week. When rumour took currency that Nazar, Bai was missing, her son Shankerlal, P.W. 11, lodged a report (Ex P 1) with the p...
Madan Kumar and ors. Vs. Surendra Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN617
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff- appellant in the court of Civil Judge, Bhilwara on 9.8.1952 alleging the defendant- respondent used to quarry mica-mines in partnesship under the name and style of Messrs. S.K. Jain and appointed the plaintiff as an Assistant Manager on 25.11.1958 on a salary of Rs. 100/- per mensem. It was further alleged that the plaintiff served the defendants for eight monthe commencing from December, 1958 to July, 1959 and was consequently entitled to get Rs. 800/- on account of his salary . It was stated that a voucher for his salary was prepared by one of the partners named Surendra Kumar on 15.8.1959 promising that the arrears of salary due to the plaintiff would be paid by 31st August, 1959 and this voucher is alleged to have been signed by another partner, defenndant No. 2 Premsingh. Thus he claimed Rs. 800/- as arrears of salary and Rs.290/-as interest thereon.2. Separate written-statements were filed ...
Natha Singh Vs. Sanwalia and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Raj241
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for injunction.2. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants who are brothers constructed a 'Parnala' in their house 3 to 4 days before the institution of the suit so as to discharge the rain water as well as filthy water over the plaintiff's 'nohra' which they had no rignt to do. Consequently, it was prayed that the 'parnala' may be closed and an injunction may be issued against the defendant not to discharge water in the plaintiff's 'nohra'. The defendants pleaded in their written statement that the 'nohra' on which the water was discharged from their house through the 'parnala' in question did not belong to the plaintiff and that in any case they had acquired prescriptive right of easement to discharge water through the 'parnala' in question.3. After recording the evidence produced by the parties the learned Civil Judge, Bharatpur held that the defendants had failed to prove the alleged prescriptive right to...
Mahra Singh Vs. Sanwalia and Kamla
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN614
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for injunction.2. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants who are brothers constructed a 'Parnala' in their house 3 to 4 days before the institution of the suit so as to discharge the rain water, as well as filthy water over the plaintiff's 'nohra' they had no right to do. Consequently, it was prayed that the 'parnala' may be closed and an injunction may be issued against the defendant not to discharge water in the plaintiff's 'Nohra'. The defendants pleaded in their Written statement that the 'Nohra' on which the water was discharged from their house through the 'parnala' in question did not belong to the plaintiff and that in any case they had acquired prescriptive right of easement to discharge water through the 'parnala' in question.3. After recording the evidence produced by the parties the learned Civil Judge, Bharatpur held that the defendants had failed to prove the alleged prescriptive right to disc...
Bhanwar Lal Vs. Moti Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Raj242; 1970(3)WLN595
ORDERP.N. Shinghal, J.1. This is an application in revision of defendant Bhanwarlai against the order of Additional Munsiff No. 1, Jodhpur, dated May 1, 1970, rejecting the challenge to the jurisdiction and the competence of his Court to try the suit.2. The suit was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge. Jodhpur, on June 3, 1967, as its value was Rs. 2,660/- and it was not triable by the Munsiff whose pecuniary jurisdiction was up to Rupees 2,000/-. The learned District Judge transferred the suit for trial to Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur. By virtue of the delegation of the State Government's powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950, hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance,' the High Court issued a notification under Clause (b) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 19 directing that the jurisdiction of the Munsiffs named in the notification shall, with effect from October 2, 1969, extend to the hearing and determination of any...
Kartar Singh Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN688
Kan Singh, J.1. This is an appeal by are Kartar Singh brought against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, convicting him of an offence under Section 304 Part 1 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to 8 years rigorous imprisonment together with fine of Rs. 50/-, in default three months rigorous imprisonment.2. The appeal raises a question about the exercise of right of private defence. The facts lie within a narrow compass and are these.3. The accused Kartar Singh and deceased Gurcharan Singh resided in Chak 7 S. II, district Ganganagar. They had their agricultural lands in that village which were served by a common water-course. Accused Kartar Singh had a square near the water-course which was No. 14, On the other side of the water-course was square No. 15 which was abadi. The incident happened on the morning of 22.5.69 at 6.00 a.m. The accused had his turn of water on the preceding night when, through the water-course, he had taken water in the square. After his turn was o...
Pala Singh Vs. Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN591
L.S. Mehta, J. 1. The dispute between the applicant Pala Singh and the nonapplicants Ram Singh and others relates to 19 bighas 10 biswas of land (Khowat No. 5 and Khatoni No. 41), situate in Chak No. 10 JRK, Tehsil Hanumangarh. On receipt of the application from Pala Singh a preliminary order was passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, on August 7, 1968, requiring the parties to adduce evidence in respect of their respective claim to the said property. The non-applicants Ram Singh and others produced their evidence on October 7, 1968 On November 4, 1968, Pala Singh moved an application in the court of the Sub Dvisional Magistrate, Haunmangarh, requesting that the Revenue and Irrigation Patwaris of Chak No. 10 JRK should be summoned together with the relevant record. That prayer was opposed by learned counsel for the non-applicants and it was urged that under Sub-section (4) of Section 145, Cr. P. C , all parties to the proceedings could adduce evidence in respect ...
Kalu Ram Vs. Ghisalal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Raj244; 1970(3)WLN654
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree dated 4th February, 1963, of the Senior Civil Judge, Sikar.2. A preliminary decree for sale of the mortgaged property in terms of Order 34 Rule 4, Civil P. C. has been passed in favour of the plaintiff respondent. The suit is for enforcement of four mortgages dated 2nd December 1947, 16th April 1948, 27th May, 1950 and 19th July. 1951, alleged to have been executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. All the deeds are duly registered. According to the plaintiff who is the son of Kedar-mal, the original mortgagee, a sum of Rs. 15571/14/- is due against the defendants on the said mortgages. Defendant No. 2 has been impleaded because he Is the son of defendant No. 1 and is a member of the joint Hindu family with his father. The suit was contested by both the defendants. Defendant No. 1 denied the execution of the mortgages as also the receipt of any consideration. It was stated that in gambling transactions with...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›