Rajasthan Court May 1971 Judgments
Ram Partap Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN321
L.S. Metha, J.1. This is a writ petition filed against (1) The State of Raj (21 than, The Collector. Ganganagar, (3) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh Junction and (4) The Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. Hanurnangarh Junction. The averments in the petition are that the petitioner is a resident of village Chollan Wali, Tehsil Hanurnangarh, and is a Panch of the of the Gram Panchayat Chotlan Wali, Panchayat Samiti, Hahumangarh. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the State Government by notification, dated 9.12.1963, published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 13.2.1964, proceeded to declare its intention to regulate purchase and sale of certain agricultural produce, specified therein in the area falling within the limits of 31 Panchayats of Hanumangarh Panchayat Samiti and the Panchayat of Sadul Shahar & proceeded to invite objections and suggestions within one month from the date of t...
Tag this Judgment!Shankarlal Vs. Chimanlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN163
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is appeal by the defendants from the judgment and decree 19-1-1963 of the District Judge, Udaipur, arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 16828/-.2. Shortly stated the case of the plaintiffs in the court below was that on 1st May, 1948, they took a If also of a Cinema house known as Summer Tallies situated at Kishargarh from Maharaja Sumersingh of Kishangarh for a period of five years on a monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- On 6th August, 1948, it was orally agreed between the plaintiffs and the defendants at Udaipur that the said Cinema house be sublet to the defendants on the same terms and conditions en which they bed taken it from Maharaja of Kishangarh. On 7th August, 1848, in pursuance of the said oral agreement possession over the Cinema house was delivered to the defendants and they also executed an agreement en 10th August, 1948, at Kishengarh by which they undertook to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 2600/- directly to Maharaja of Kishangarh, and in case they ...
Tag this Judgment!Ghisi Lal Vs. Phoolchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN(UC)25
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff respondent Phoolchand on 15th May, 1968 in the court of the Additional Munsiff No. 1, Jaipur (East) for ejectment and arrears of rent in respect of shop situated in the city of Jaipur. The plaintiff's case was that in a partition suit between himself and other co-sharers in respect of the joint family property belonging to them the shop in dispute fell to his share and symbiotic possession of the same was delivered to him by the receiver appointed in the partition suit on 27th May, 1962 (vide certified copy of the report of the Commissioner Ex. 2) Another copy of these proceeding has been filed by the defendant also and that is marked as Ex. A.3. The plaintiff's case is that the shop was originally rented out to one Bhoren Sahai on Choth Sudi 1, Samvat 2003 equivalent to 3rd April, 1946 at monthly rent of Rs. 72/- and Bhoren Sahai had sub-let the same without permission of the landlord and ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishansingh Vs. Bheroon Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj33
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff Kishan Singh for possession of a plot of land situated in village Sedariya on the ground that the land in question was owned and possessed by the plaintiff and that in November 1959 the possession of the same was given by the plaintiff to the defendant in exchange for a house described in para No. 2 of the plaint, and that the plaintiff paid Rs. 500/- over and above to the defendant, but the defendant returned the amount of Rs. 500/- and refused to hand over possession, of the house belonging to him. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he denied the plaintiff's ownership and possession over the plot in dispute at any point of time and pleaded that the plot in question had been owned and possessed by him since generations and that the story of exchange set up by the plaintiff was all a myth.2. After recording the evidence produced by the parties the Civil Judge. Partabgarh by his judgm...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Singh Vs. Bheroon Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN129
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff Kishan Singh for possession of a plot land situated in village Sedariya on the ground that the land in question was owned and possessed by the plaintiff and that in November 1959 the possession of the same was given by the plaintiff to the defendant in exchange for a house described in para No. 2 of the plaint, and that the plaintiff paid Rs. 500/- over and above to the defendant, but the defendant returned the amount of Rs. 500/- and refused to hand over possession of the house belonging to him. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he denied the plaintiff's ownerships and possession over the plot in dispute at any point of time and pleaded that the plot in question had been owned and possessed by him since generations and that the story of exchange set by up the plaintiff was all a myth.2. After recording the evidence produced by the parties the Civil Judge, Partabgarh by his judgment...
Tag this Judgment!Satya NaraIn and ors. Vs. Sardar Chand and anr. and Nathmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN182
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree dated 29th August, 1963, of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer.2. Plaintiffs Sardar Chand and Santok Chand instituted the present suit to enforce their mortgage dated 3rd March, 1952, executed by Nathmal as Karta of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his sons in consideration of Rs. 7500/- with stipulation to pay interest at the rate of eight annas per cent per month. The mortgage debt was to be repaid within four years and the mortgagor having failed to repay the amount except the sum of Rs. 1125/- towards interest, the present suit was instituted for recovery of Rs. 11963.82 and in default of its payment for sale of the mortgaged property. Nathmal did not appear to contest the suit but his sons, some of whom were minors on the date of the mortgage, contested the suit denying the execution of the mortgage by their father as also the passing of the consideration of any family necessity. In paragraph 7 of the ad...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Sabir
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ704; 1971(4)WLN327
Kan Singh, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Partabgarh, in a case under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act. 1970, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act'. 2. The allegation against the accused respondent was that on 23-6-1968 he had hit a cow with an axe on the hind portion of its body, The blade of the axe got stuck into the body of the animal. The accused was seen running behind the cow and P. W. 1 Lalit Kumar and P. W. 6 Mukram Khan had seen the cow running ahead of the accused and the axe was sticking on it. This was pulled out by Lalit Kumar. The cow belonged to one Chhotu Ahir. The cow was taken to the veterinary doctor Rameshchandra Gupta (P. W. 2) who examined the injury of the cow. Dr. Gupta reported that the injury of the cow was serious. The report of the incident was lodged by P. W. 1 Lalit Kumar at police station Partabgarh. The police registered a case against the accused an...
Tag this Judgment!Labhmal Vs. Lalchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj123; 1971(4)WLN275
Jain, J.1. This Is a special appeal under Section 18 (2) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 by leave of a Single Judge of this Court.2. Labhmal had a money decree against Lalchand, judgment-debtor for a sum of Rs. 5,862/-. By his application dated 12-7-1962 in the execution court, he prayed for the arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison. On notice the respondent judgment-debtor opposed the application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After enquiry, the Civil Judge, Jodhpur ordered the judgment-debtor to be sent to civil prison for six months. In appeal against this order the learned District Judge held that in view of the proviso to Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment-debtor was not liable to arrest and detention in civil prison. He accordingly set aside the order of the execution court and allowed the appeal by his order dated 7th April, 1965.3. The decree-holder presented an appeal against this order on 12th July, 1965...
Tag this Judgment!Budh Singh Bapna Vs. the Assistant Custodian Evacuee Property, Jaipur ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj34; 1971(4)WLN125
Chhangani, J.1. This is a special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajas-than High Court Ordinance against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 9th April, 1965.2. The relevant facts are these--The appellant obtained a money decree against an evacuee, Sahibzada Abdul Qaddus. The Assistant Custodian Evacuee Property had been impleaded as a defendant in the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit against him and no appeal was preferred against the decree. In execution of the decree a house which formerly belonged to Sahibzada Abdul Qaddus was attached. The Assistant Custodian filed an objection purporting to be under Section 47, Civil P. C. in which it was stated that the house had vested in the Custodian and was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree under Section 17 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was also stated that the house had since vested in the Union as it was ac...
Tag this Judgment!Kanakmal and ors. Vs. Mahadev Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN120
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the wall raised by them contiguous to the western gate of a godown belonging to the plaintiff-respondent and also for issue of a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the passage of light and air through the said gate. It has also been prayed that the defendants may further be restrained from obstructing the flow of water from the roof of the godown through the spouts falling on the defendants' land.2. Raj Kanwar and Suraj Singh were admittedly the original owners of both the godown belonging to the plaintiffs and the house belonging the defendants. They sold the godown and one other house situated towards the north of the godown to one Premsukh by sale deed (Ex.9) dated 5.1.1949. Premsukh in his turn sold the godown to one Harswaroop by a sale deed (Ex 8) dated 26.7 1955. Har Swaroop sold it to Nathulal vide sale deed (Ex.2) ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›