Rajasthan Court February 1971 Judgments
The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Smt. Krishna Kumari and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN155
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30th October, 1964, of the Senior Civil Judge No. 2, Jaipur City.2. Smt. Krishna Kumari the plaintiff in the suit is the wife of Zabar Singh, an Upper Division Clerk of the Accountant General's office, Rajasthan who was allotted quarter No. G.88 in Bajajnagar, Jaipur, for his residence in August, 1960. This quarter belonged to the Union of India and was constructed and completed by the Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, of the Union of India. Plaintiff was living in this quarter with her husband. The work of electricity fittings in the main line was done by the Electricity Board, Rajasthan whereas the internal fittings in the quarters were done by the employees of the Union of India. There was a loose earth wire, the one end of which was placed in the switch board in the Quarter and the other one was left lying on the ground outside the quarter on the public street. Plaintiff's case is that on 30th January,...
Tag this Judgment!Jeeta Ram Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN147
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a revision application by one Jeetaram. He was convicted by the learned Muniff Magistrate, Pali, on his plea of guilty on three counts namely, under Sections 420, 465 and 468 Indian Penal Code. He was awarded one year's rigorous imprisonment on each count and a fine of Rs. 1,100/- in addition for the offence under Section 468 Indian Penal Code, in defaulted. It one month's further rigorous imprisonment. All the three substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He appealed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Pali against his conviction and sentences, but without success.2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that the accused had approached the complainant Hastimal Kothari of Pali on 22-1-70 with a lottery ticket bearing No. B-155027 of the State Lottery of Jammu & Kashmir and told him that in the third draw of the Lottery on 11-1-70. the second prize of rupees one lac had been declared on the aforesaid ticket. The accused requested Hastimal to adv...
Tag this Judgment!Chhutan Lal Vs. the Punjab National Bank Ltd., Ajmer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj159; 1971(4)WLN173
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. The twoexecution first appeals can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment.2. Maharaja Kisnangarh Mills Ltd. had dealings with Punjab National Bank Ltd. Money was advanced to the Mills by the Bank on the surety of one Bhagchand Soni. Title deeds of the property belonging to the firm Jawaharmal Gambhirmal of Ajmer of which Bhagchand Soni was the Karta were delivered to the Head Office of the Punjab National Bank Ltd. at Delhi between 15-11-54 and 27-11-54. These pertained to the properties situated at Ajmer, Kishangarh, Jaipur and Jodhpur. When the Maharaja Kishangarh Mills became indebted heavily the matter was referred to the arbitrators. One award was given on 12-2-58 for Rs. 94,070/-. A decree was passed on the basis of this award on 18-2-58 by the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer. It was a mortgage decree. Another award was given on 8-6-58. It was for Rupees 2,81,724.72. A mortgage decree was passed on the basis of this award on 30-5-59.3. The first decree for Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Laxmi Devi and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN(UC)11
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is a reference by Smt. Laxmi Devi and another and is directed against the order of the Additional Civil Judge, No. 3, Jaipur City, exercising powers of a court under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act.2. The facts leading to the reference may be briefly stated as follows. Jankilal the predecessor in interest of the applicants was owner of three shops, two temples, kham and pucca houses in the city of Jaipur. His property was acquitted under the Land Acquisition Act and eventually, the Collector. (The Land Acquisition officer exercising powers of Collector) gave a award as to the compensation payable to Jankilal, on 6-7-1967. It is unnecessary to set out the details of the award, for the purposes of disposing of this revision application. Jankilal applied to the Collector (officer making the award) for making reference to the court on 14-8-67, and the officer made a reference on 21-9-67. Notice of the reference was served on the Government and...
Tag this Judgment!Nanusam Vs. Sitaram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj36; 1971(4)WLN314
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This second appeal by the defendant has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court on account of certain observations made by Bhandari, J. in Guman v. Laxman, (1961) ILR 11 Raj 913 and some conflict of judicial opinion on the point.2. The facts relevant for disposal of the case are these. A suit brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money was decreed by Munsif Bikaner on 30th May 1962. The court remained open upto 3rd June, 1962 and closed for the vacation from 4th June, 1962 to 1st July, 1962. It reopened on 2nd July, 1962. The defendant filed an application for copy of the judgment and decree on 2nd July, 1962. He presented an appeal unaccompanied by copies of the judgment and decree on 3-7-1962. On 19-7-1962 copies of the judgment and the decree were delivered to him which he presented in the appeal. The appeal was thus taken to have been properly presented on 19-7-1962. It was dismissed as time-barred by ...
Tag this Judgment!Dal Chand Vs. Ramakant
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN45
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. This revision raises an interesting question as to the interpretation of Order 16 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, as amended by the Rajasthan High Court.2. The revision came up for hearing on 10th February, 1971. The learned Counsel for the parties pointed out that a number of revisions against orders passed by subordinate courts on varying interpretations of Order 16 Rule 1 C.P.C. have been pending in this Court and that the subordinate courts have passed contradictory orders almost in similar circumstances and suggested that the hearing of the revision application may be adjourned and all Advocates interested in assisting the Court for the proper interpretation of Order 16, Rule 1 C.P.C. should be given an opportunity to do so. The case was, therefore, adjourned for hearing today, and a number of similar revisions were also listed for hearing.3. I have heard Mr. A.L. Mehta for the petitioner and Mr. D.S. Sishodia for the respondent. The other counsel appearing in o...
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar and anr. Vs. the Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj227; 1971(4)WLN35
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the iudgment debtors against an order of the executing court.2. The material facts are these. Mohanlal borrowed a sum of Rs. 18,500/-from the Urban Co-ouerative Bank. Ajmer on 3rd September 1930. Chand-mal stood surety for the repavment of the loan. An award was given on 16-1-32 in favour of the Urban Co-operative Bank under rule 18 of the Rules framed under Section 43 of the Co-operative Societies Act II of 1912 (Central). It was for Rs. 20,681-14-9. It was reduced to Rs. 19.756-14 on revision. The first execution application was filed by the Bank in the civil Court under the aforesaid Rules on 26-2-32. Six of the mortgaged properties were sold for Rs. 15,968-8-9 and the amount was withdrawn by the Bank. On 14-12-39 the execution application was consigned to the record room in part satisfaction.3. Earlier Ram Chander filed a suit on 31-8-39 for redemption of two out of the six properties which had been sold in execution of the award and one o...
Tag this Judgment!Khaju Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN37
L.S. Mehta, J.1. On February 28, 1968, P.W. 1 Balraj Singh, Food Inspector, Ajmer, after issuing requisite notice (Ex. P. 1), purchased at Ajmer 12 'Chhatanks' of cow-milk from Khaju Gujar, resident of Kalyanipura in lieu of 60. P. for the purpose of an analysis. The milk was divided into 3 equal parts, each of which was kept in a bottle, which was duly sealed. One of the samples was given to the accused Khaju and a receipt thereof there of Ex P. 2 was obtained from him. The other sample was kept by the Food Inspector and the third one was sent with a memorandum Ex. P. 4 to the Public Analyst, Ajmer, for ascertainment of chemical elements. The sample reached the hands of the Public Analyst on February 28,1968. He at first compared the seal on the container of the sample with the specimen impression received by him separately and found the seal on the bottle identical and in tact. Thereafter he analysed the sample and certified the result as under: 1. Fat content 5 2% 2. Solids non-fat ...
Tag this Judgment!Gumanmal Vs. Kanwar Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Raj273
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is a defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment in respect of a shop situated in Jodhpur decreed against him by the two courts below. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised two contentions: The first is that the notice of ejectment was not properly served. It appears that a notice dated 18-1-62 was affixed at the suit shop on the same date. The plaintiff's case is that it was not practicable to serve the notice on the defendant personally and consequently it was offered to his brother Mangilal who too refused to take it, and, therefore, it was affixed at the shop. The pasting of the notice at the suit shop is proved by the evidence produced by the plaintiff. The courts below accepted the plaintiff's version that the notice had been pasted and I do not see any reason to take a different view. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, urges that the notice had not been tendered to Mangilal as stated by P. W. 1 Kanwarlal. He has ...
Tag this Judgment!Guman Mal Vs. Kanwar Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN56
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising cut of a suit for ejectment in respect of a shop situated in Jodhpur decreed against him by the two courts below.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has raised two contention. The first is that the notice of ejectment was not properly served. It appears that a notice dated 18-1-62 was affixed at the suit shop on the same date. The plaintiff's case is that it was not practicable to serve the notice on the defendant personally and consequently it was offered to his brother Mangilal who too refused to take it, and, therefore, it was affixed at the shop. The pasting of the notice at the suit shop is proved by the evidence produced by the plaintiff. The courts below accepted the plaintiff's version that the notice had teen pasted and I do not see any reason to take a different view. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, urges that the notice had not been tendered to Mangilal as stated by P.W. 1 Kanwarlal. He has pointed out...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »