Rajasthan Court August 1971 Judgments
Rahimulla Vs. Zahur Mohammad and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj118
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This is a reference by a learned Single Judge before whom a preliminary objection was taken when the present second appeal came up for hearing that the appeal has abated. As the question was not free from difficulty this reference was made.2. The facts necessary for disposing of the reference are these. Rahimulla & Karim Bux were the owners of adjacent houses. In front of their houses was a piece of land, alease of which was granted in favour of Smt. Sakina by the Urban Improvement Board, Jaipur. Smt. Sakina hadstarted constructions over the land. Rahimulla and Karim Bux claimed private rights of easement over the land.They also claimed that the land was a public thoroughfare. On these grounds they prayed for a decree perpetually restraining Smt. Sakina from constructing over the land in dispute and for granting a mandatory injunction against her for demolishing the constructions already made. The suit was contested by Smt. Sakina. The trial court decreed it. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Hardeo Singh Vs. Pramukh, Zila Parishad, Sikar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj51; 1971(4)WLN455
ORDER1. This is a petition by Hardeosingh under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order to quash the orders of the Pramukh, Zila Parishad, Sikar, rejecting the petitioner's application for withdrawal of the resignation and accepting and sanctioning the resignation of the petitioner. The petitioner also prayed that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the petitioner's discharge of duties as Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Fatehpur.2. The relevant facts are these-The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Fatehpur in the year 1965. On 27-1-1970 he signed a resignation letter. The same was forwarded by the Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti, Fatehpur, on 28-1-1970 to the Zila Pramukh, Sikar. However, on 2-2-1970, the petitioner sent a letter withdrawing the letter of resignation and the same was received by the Zila Pramukh on 3-2-1970. According to the petitioner, the letter withdrawing ...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Mohanlal Ramchandra Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj152; 1971(4)WLN298
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This is aplaintiff's special appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of thisCourt in second appeal dismissing its suitfor the recovery of compensation whichwas decreed by the trial court and the firstappellate court.2. The facts which were taken to have been proved by the first appellate court and which are binding in this special appeal are these. There was a firm Doongarmal Mohanlal at village Dholipal in, Ganganagar district, the proprietor of which was Mohanlal. Ridhkaran was the Munim of that firm. He was sent to Kesinga, (District Kalihandi, Orissa) to sell gram. After selling the gram he sent the sale proceeds to the said firm by post. On 18-7-57 he sent currency notes for Rs. 2,500/-by a registered insured parcel. The parcel was contained in a cloth cover on which it was written both in figures and words that it was insured for Rs. 2,500/-. During transit between Kesinga and Ganganagar the parcel was tampered with and currency notes for Rs. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Phoolchand and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ352
B.P. Beri, J.1. Reversing an order of acquittal dated 16-6-1967 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aimer, we, by our judgment dated 9-8-1971, convicted Phoolchand under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded him imprisonment for life and Shymlal under Section 201 of the same Code and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment. Phoolchand and Shyamlal have now applied for certificate under Article 134 of the Constitution of India for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and for suspension of sentence.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for applicants and the learned Counsel for the State at some length.3. In so far as the case of Phool-chand, who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life, is concerned right to appeal to the Supreme Court is available to him under the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 (Act 28 of 1970) (hereinafter called 'the Act'. The relevant provision reads:2. Enlarged appe...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyanbux and anr. Vs. ShrinaraIn and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN426
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is a revision application against the order of the Munsiff Magistrate Jaipur District date 6th May, 1968, passing an order for the abatement of the suit under Section 6(6)(i) of the Rajasthan Relief of Agriculturists Indebtedness Act, 1957, (Act No. 28 of 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. A suit for recovery of Rs. 1615.54P. was instituted by the petitioners against the defendants on 20th September, 1967. Defendant No. 1 admitted the execution of the khata which was the basis of the suit while defendant No. 2 denied his liability. On 25th January, 1963, Shri Narain defendant at No. 1 applied for the stay of the proceedings for a period of three months to enable him to make an application under Section 6 to the Debt Relief Court. It was asserted in the application that the defendant was an agriculturist, and was cultivating 15 Bighas of land in village Vatka Tahsil Sanganer. Its Paicha Khatauni was also in his name and that his main source of liveliho...
Tag this Judgment!Ranumal Vs. Municipal Council, Ajmer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj55; 1971(4)WLN387
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment.2. It is common ground between the parties that the defendant took on lease from the plaintiff a plot of land bearing AMG No. 21/310, situated outside Delhi Gate, Ajmer on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- by lease deed Ex. 1 dated 26-6-1958. The period of lease was one year commencing from 1-4-1958 to 31-3-1959. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the defendant continued as tenant by holding over even after the expiry of the term fixed by the lease. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant had paid rent only upto 31-10-1963. It is further alleged that the plaintiff served a notice dated 25-9-1964 on the defendant calling upon the latter to vacate the premises by 31-10-1964 or on any other date on which the defendant thought his tenancy expired. A copy of this notice has been placed on the record and marked Ex. 2. The present suit was filed by the Municipal Council on 3-2-1965 asking for ej...
Tag this Judgment!Nathulal Vs. Vishnu Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj65; 1971(4)WLN292
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. The only point for decision in this appeal by the defendant-tenant is whether the words 'for the period for which the tenant may have made default' occurring in Section 13 (4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 refer to the period for which the arrears of rent are within limitation or they refer to the full arrears of rent be they within limitation or barred by limitation 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that these words should be taken to refer only to such arrears of rent as are within limitation and can be legally recovered through the process of the court. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied upon T. S. R. Sarma v. Nagendra Bala Debi, AIR 1952 Cal 879 (FB), and Krishna Chandra Bose v. Radharani, AIR 1954 Cal 102. 3. I have gone through both the rulings and in my opinion they are distinguishable inasmuch as the view taken therein is based on the language of Section 14(1) of the West Ben...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN646
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. Petitioner Mohanlal has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, Sections 4 and 5 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (hereinafter called the Act) be declared void and the order passed by the Estate Officer, Udaipur, on 6th January, 1969, and upheld by the District Judge, Udaipur, by his Judgment dated 27th February, 1969, be quashed and the respondents may be directed to restore the possession of shop No. 69 to the petitioner.2. The facts giving rise xo this writ petition are as follows. The petitioner was resident of village Karia. He wanted a shop to start his business in the town of Udaipur, but since the petitioner was an outsider, the Public Works Department which owned shop No. 69 refused to let out shop to the petitioner unless somebody who was a resident of the town of Udaipur executed a rent deed in favour of the Executive Enginee...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Lal Swarnkar Vs. Director of Ncc and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1971
Reported in: 1972WLN687
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. As this writ petition fails on one of the two preliminary objections of the learned Counsel for the respondents, it is not necessary to state all the facts.2. It will be sufficient to say that while the petitioner was serving as lecturer in commerce in Shri Kalyan College, Sikar, the President granted him a commission in the National Cadet Corps as 2nd Lieutenant, in the Senior Division (Army Wing), with effect from March 30, 1966, by order Ex 2. He was posted in the same college, in the 10/19 NCC Coy, which was thereafter designated as 3/19 NCC Coy. He was transferred to S.B. Dugar College, Sardar Shahar by order (Ex. 8) of the Director of Education dated July 29, 1967. A copy of the order was sent to Director, NCC, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The petitioner took over charge as Lecturer in Commerce in S.B. Dugar College, Sardar Shahar on August 17, 1967 and was allowed to work as Company Commander in the 2nd Rajasthan Indep. Coy. NCC., as that post was lying vacant While th...
Tag this Judgment!Bahadur Vs. Motiram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj250; 1971(4)WLN334
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to resell the property in dispute to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1100/-. 2. The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint is that he had purchased the house in dispute on 17-3-1960 from one Kanaram for Rs. 4800/-. The sale deed in his favour has, however, not been placed on the record. It is alleged that he was badly in need of money on account of the marriages of his two daughters and so he agreed to mortgage the house in question for Rs. 1000/- with the defendant No, 1 Motiram, who however, played a fraud upon him, and actually got a sale deed executed by him for Rs. 1000/- on 5-10-61. The original sale deed has been placed on the record and is marked Ex. 2. It is admitted case of the parties that on the same day Motiram executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff to resell the property in dispute to the latter for a sum of Rs. 1100/- on or before 31-3...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »