Rajasthan Court April 1971 Judgments
Brij Bhushanlal Vs. Govindlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN(UC)21
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent and also for award of mesne profits after the termination of the tenancy.2. Only the question of ejectment has been raised before me, and, therefore, I need not advert to the question of arrears of rent and mesne profits. The premises in question which consists of one Chandhani with a balconi facing west, one Tibara, one Chandani facing north, one Mahal two Medies and one room on the roof shown in yellow colour in the plan attached to the plaint were admittedly rented out to the defendant-appellant on 17-9-1949 at a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- by Shrinath Bhat, who gifted the whole house in which the above mentioned apartments are situated to the plaintiff respondent Govindlal by a registered gift-deed, dated 25-1-1965. The plaintiff thereafter-served a notice of termination of tenancy and filed the present suit for ejectment from the premises in question on the ground that th...
Tag this Judgment!Maganlal Sankalchand Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN(UC)19
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The assessment year is 1950-51 and the relevant accounting year the assessee was a share-holder of the Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. Ramganjmandi, (hers inafter referred to as the Company). The assessee received from the Company a divided of Rs. 1,73,839/- declared by the said Company on 29.9.1949 out of its profits for the year ended 30.9,49. The assessee had income from other sources also.3. In the course fo assessment for the year the Income-tax Officer included the said dividend income received by the assessee and subjected it to tax after giving the appropriate rebate under the Part B States (Txation Concession) Order, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Concession Order), The Income-tax Officer also grossed up the said dividend at the concessional rate of 16 pies per rupee. Under para 12 of the said order only 50% of the dividen...
Tag this Judgment!Moti Lal and ors. Vs. Jeet Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN194
C.M. Lodha, J.1. There are two connected appeals filed against the single judgment and decree by the District Judge, Ajmer dated 15 3 1965 in Civil Appellate Nos. 337 and 366 of 1965 arising out of a suit for redemption of mortgage.2. On 9-3-1908 one Brij Mohanlal mortgaged, undivided 1/4th share belonging to him in the house in question situated in the city of Ajmer with Dewan Bahadur Ummedmal, ancestor of defendants Nos. 4 and 5 Sobhagmal and Sampat Mai for a sum of Rs. 10 000/-. On 2-12-1918 Brij Mohanlal sold away the equity of redemption in the mortgaged property to one Suwalal who was the owner of the rest of the 3/4th share in the house. Defendant No. 4 Sobhagmal filed a suit for partition and possession of 1/4 share in the house against Suwalal and others in the Court of Sub-Judge. First Class, Ajmer and obtained a preliminary decree on 20 12-1928 vide Ex. A. 2. This decree was confirmed in appeal by the Tudicial Commissioner, Ajmer-Merwara by his judgment dated 25-9-1932. On 3...
Tag this Judgment!Surjansingh Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN360
L.S. Mehta, J.1. In village Kishanpura Utarda, police station, Sadul Shahar, District Ganganagar, one Nathusingh Rajput, son of Moolsingh, had 180 Bighas of land. Nathusingh had no son. He had a D/o Mst. Soni. Her son, Dhyan Singh, P W.6, bad been taken in adoption by Nithu Singh Nithu Singh died some 6 years back. Banwari Lal, P.W. 5, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kishanpura, caused mutation of 90 bighas of land in favour of Dhyan Singh and the residual in the name of Mst. Soni Out of the share allotted to Dhyan Singh, a strip of 20 bighas in Chak No. 10 P.T.P. had been under the cultivation of Mangla Ram alias Sheo Karan, Bishnoi (deceased) as a lessee for about 10 years. Sometime after the death of Nathu Singh. Sheo Karan had purchased the land from Dhyan Singh through a registered sale-deed. 12 bighas of land in Chak No. 10 P.T.P. and 8 bighas of land in Chak No. 13 P.T.P. had been under the tillage of Kipoor Singh After the death of Ntthu Singh, the accused Surjan Singh Rajput, reside...
Tag this Judgment!Chauthmal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN213
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is a special appeal under Section 18(1) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against the Judgment and order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 2.3.1966 dismissing the appellant's writ application No. 71 1964.2. The relevant facts are these on 22.9.1960 the respondent No. 4 Smt. Kanwari Bai submitted an application to the Municipal Board, Merta City praying that a plot of land of the dimensions : length 13' x 14' and width 3 x 10' contiguous to her godown in Ghosion ka mohalla in the town of Merta be sold to her on taking its price at the due rate and patta be issued to her. On this application a proclamation was published under the order of the Secretary, Municipal Board Merta City, inviting objection within one month. No one filed any objection. The papers were, however not put up by the Secretary either before the Board or before the Chairman for orders on the application, of Mst. Kanwari Bai On the contrary on 12-11-60 he order the sale o...
Tag this Judgment!Akharam and anr. Vs. Sohanlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN95
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The only point calling for determination in this appeal by the plaintiffs is whether the payments of interest made by Madanlal on the promissory-note in suit admittedly within limitation would extend the limitation against the co-promiser Sohanlal also, who is admittedly the brother of Madanlal.2. The trial court held that Madanlal was duly authorised by Sohan Lal to make these payments and consequently it held the suit to be within limitation against Sohanlal also and decreed it against him, whereas the learned District Judge, Jodhpur has held that Madanlal was not proved to be a duly authorised agent to make payments of interest towards the promissory note on behalf of the co-promisor Sohanlal and consequently he dismissed the suit against Sohanlal. In these circumstances the plaintiffs have come in second appeal to this Court.3. There are three entries of payment of interest by Madanlal on the promissory-note and none by Sohanlal. Learned Counsel for the appellants,...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Santok Bai and ors. Vs. Haroomal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN(UC)10
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is a revision-application by the plaintiff-landlords legal representatives against the appellate judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Ajmer, dated 25-4-70 affirming the judgment of the Munsif West, Ajmer, dated 20-9-59 allowing the defendant tenants application under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.)2. The relevant facts are these. The defendant-respondents were tenants of Khanchand the husband of petitioner No I arid father of petitioners Nos. 2 & 3. He filed a suit for rent and ejectment against the respondents and obtained a decree for ejectment on 8-11-56 on the ground of his bonafide and reasonable requirement. The decree was upheld in first appeal and in second appeal. The tenants vacated the property QQ 31-8-67. On 23-2-68 the defendant tenants submitted an application under Section 15 of the Act praying to be placed in possession of the suit property on the ground th...
Tag this Judgment!Kundan Lal Tak Vs. Bhanwar Lal Tak and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN(UC)24
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is plaintiff's revision against the order of the District Judge, Jaipur District dated 21-5-69, deciding two issues Nos. 6 and 9. The issues read as follows-6. Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is sufficient?9. Whether in the absence of a prayer for consequential relief the present suit, which is for declaration, is maintainable?2. On issue No. 6, the trial Judge has expressed an opinion that the plaintiffs suit falls under Section 24(d) of the Court Fees Act. He, however, has not yet determined the amount of court fee payable as the parties have put forward varying versiens about the valuation of the property and a correct valuation can only be ascertained after evidence. The plaintiff's suit being one for a declaration and there being no prayer for consequential relief Section 24(d) prima facie would govern the present case. At any rate, it is open to the petitioner to challenge this order against the order finally determining the court fee payable...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashraf Khan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN208
L.S. Mehta, J.1. The succinct fact of this case, as alleged by the prosecution, are that the accused Ashraf Khan was a Police Head Constable. He was attached to Jagdish Singh, P. Section I, in the Additional Munsif-Magistrate', Jaipur City (West). Bhagwan Das, driver of jeep-car No. RSL 5953, owned by P.W 1 Bhagat Ram, had been involved in a criminal case, relating to rash and negligent driving and causing grievous injury to some person. The police presented a challan against him under Sections 279 and 339, I.P.C., in the aforesaid court. It is alleged that Jagdish Singh, P.S.I., and Ashraf Khan had demanded Rs. 100/- from Bhagwan Das for getting him released in the criminal case on payment of a nominal fine. After some negotiations Rs. 45/- were settleed as a bribe. Pursuant to that arrangement Rs. 20/- were paid to the accused on January 7, 1963. The residue was promised to be paid the next dav when the judgment of the court would be pronounced. Bhagat Ram owner of the jeep-car, show...
Tag this Judgment!Kusum Kumar Vs. Supra Films
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN127
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision against the order dated 22/8/70 of the Additional District Judge, No. l, Jodhpur, requiring the plaintiff petitioner Kusum Kumar to appear in court for cross examination on his affidavit dated 19/6/70.2. The plaintiff petitioner filed a suit against the defendant on 19/6/70 claiming certain reliefs. The plaintiff also submitted an application supported by his affidavit for an injunction. The trial court granted an ad-interim injunction against the defendant. On 1/8/70 the defendant while opposing the plaintiff-petitioner's prayer for temporary injunction submitted an application that the plaintiff be permitted to be cross examined by the defendant's on his affidavit. The trial court allowed the defendant's application and ordered the plaintiff to appear for cross examination. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff has approached this Court in revision.3. It has been contended that the trial court has acted in breach of the express pro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »