Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN728
L.S. Mehta, J.1. This is a revision-petition taken against the order of learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, dated July 28, 1971.2. The brief facts of this case are that Pema Ram Jat, son of Dungar Ram, resident of Malasar, lodged a complaint with the police station, Jamsar, with the averments that Luna Ram and the members of his family were antagonistic with him. Litigation had proceeded and prolonged in between them. Luna Ram and his party-men were threatening him with unpropitious consequences. At about 9 a.m. on January 10, 1971, he was on his field Soon after Ram Lal, Luna Ram, Ganga Ram, Mohan Lal and Hanwat Ram arrived there. They were armed with lathis, with projecting prongs and threatened him. Thereupon he raised an alarm, which attracted Uma Ram and others on the spot. Because of this eventually, he apprehended that there was danger to his life and that possibly some heinous crime was likely to visit. He, therefore, moved the local police for initiating proceedings under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973CriLJ439; 1972()WLN630
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. This is a reference dated May 3, 1972 submitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1. Jodhpur, re-commending that the stay granted under Sub-section (5) of Section 488 Cr.P.C. by Sub-Divisional Magistrate Jodhpur, on July 3, 1971 be ordered to be cancelled.2. The short facts of this case are that an application had been filed under Section 488 Cr.P.C. by Mst. Patasi. wife of Ganesh Sargara resident of Bilara, against her husband in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Jodhpur, for award of suitable maintenance. Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Jodhpur had issued an order of subsistence on January 20. 1969 to the effect that non-petitioner Ganesh would pay Rs. 40/- p.m. to his wife Mst. Patasi, with effect from January, 1969. Subsequently an execution application had been moved by Mst. Patasi for the recovery of subsistence money from January 1969 to July 1969. Whatever amount had stood due for that period had been paid to her, Later on another applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN618
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Senior Teacher in English for Multi-purpose and Higher Secondary Schools, by order Ex. 3 dated July 22, 1957. along with several others. It was an appointment on one year's probation. He was thereafter appointed by promotion as Head Master of High Schoo1/Deputy Inspector of Schools by order Ex. 4 dated June 17, 1960 He continued to serve as Head Master Junior Higher Secondary School, or a Deputy Inspector of Schools, until 1966, when he proceeded on leave to Agra for the purpose of obtaining the degree of Master of Education. While he was in Agra in June 1967, after completing the M.Ed. course, he received telegraphic order Ex 7 dated June 25, 1967, from the Directorate of Education, by which he was informed that he had been promoted and posted' as Head Master. Higher Secondary School, Dabri, and should join there on the forenoon of July 1. That telegraphic order was confirmed by post, and the Additional Director of Primary and Seco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj1; 1972()WLN571
ORDER1. This is a reference by one of us arising out of a revision application filed by the defendant against an order of Munsif City, Jodhpur, holding that he has jurisdiction to try the suit.2. By notifications dated 2-6-1950and 19-9-1950 there are two courts ofMunsifs at Jodhpur -- Court of MunsifCity and Court of Munsif District. Theirjurisdictions are as follows :--'Court of Munsif City ..... Jodhpur City Court of Munsif District .....Jodhpur Sub-Division (excluding Jodh-pur City and Bilara Tehsil).'It is not disputed that by Jodhpur City is meant the territorial limits of the Jodhpur Municipality.3. The subject-matter of the present suit is a house situated in Maha-znandir area. In the year 1950 it was outside the municipal limits of Jodhpur. When the present suit was instituted Mahamandir had been included in Jodhpur City.4. The trial Court has held that as the area is now included in Jod'hpur City, the Court of Munsif City has jurisdiction to try the present suit,5. On behalf o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj7; 1972()WLN623
Joshi, J.1. This regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge. Sirohi, dated 9th September, 1966 decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for declaration that adoption of the appellant Dhanraj by Ami-chand was invalid. The appeal raises two points of law namely. (1) whether the step-mother is competent to give a person in adoption and (2) whether the adult person having no natural parents, can be taken in adoption.2. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in this appeal relevant facts which are not in dispute may be given. Both the parties are Porwal Jains and are the residents of Pindwara in the District of Sirohi formerly Sirohi State. Amichand. the plaintiff took Dhanraj. the defendant in adoption with the consent of his wife Smt. Surajbai on 18th November, 1959 and executed a registered deed evidencing the factum of adoption. At that time Dhanraj was twenty-one years old. He had no natural parents but had a step-mother Smt. Bhuribai with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj93; 1972()WLN616
Jagat Narayan, C.J. 1. This is a 'revision application by the father of two minor boys above the age of five years against an order of the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, appointing their grandfather as their interim guardian under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The parties are Hindus and there is no finding of the learned District Judge that the father is unfit to be their guardian. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to appoint the grandfather as interim guardian in view of Section 19(b) of the Act. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Rafiq v. Smt. Bashiran, 1963 Rai LW 229 = (AIR 1963 Raj 239).3. That case is distinguishable inasmuch as the parties were Mohammadans and Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 did not apply there.4. By virtue of Section 2 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the Courts are obliged to read togethe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj165; 1972()WLN515
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J. 1. This writ petition of Magharam is directed against the judgment of the learned Munsiff, Ratangarh dated 24-9-70 whereby the election petition of respondent No. 1 Shri Hanuwant Singh filed under Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishads (Election Rules), 1959 challenging the election of the petitioner was accepted. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are in a nut-shell, as follows:-- On account of the retirement of the two members from the Standing Committee (Finance, Tax and Administration) of the Panchayat Samiti, Sujangarh a special meeting of the Samiti was summoned on 2-8-68 for filling the aforesaid two vacant posts. The petitioner as well as non-petitioner No. 1 filed nominations and contested election. After counting of votes polled, it was found that both the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 polled equal number of votes. The petitioner was, however, declared duly elected after drawing lot. The election was challenged by responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN544
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 491 Cr. P.C. The petitioner Mehraj Mohammed's case is that he was born and brought up in Banswara (Rajasthan) and had remained in the service of the erstwhile State of Banswara in the Settlement Dept. from 16 4.45 to 7.4.47. It is alleged that he had at no time migrated to Pakistan but that alter coming into force of the Constitution of India, he went, to West Pakistan in June 1950 to meet some friends there and came back to India on 25 9.1950 on the basis of temporary permit which he was forced to obtain in the circumstances then prevailing in both the countries namely India and Pakistan. He has further alleged that after coming back to India he was appointed as Ameen in the Settlement Department of the Government Rajasthan and was posted at Bhilwara on 17.5.1952 and was subsequently confirmed in this post on 6 3.1968. He was arrested on 24.1.1971 i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj208; 1972()WLN784
J.P. Jain, J.1. This is a second appeal by defendant Ramprasad against whom a decree for redemption on payment of Rs. 450/- has been passed by the Munsif Aimer District. Aimer and which has been upheld by the Civil Judge. Aimer 2. The facts leading to this appeal may be summarised as follows:--There is a pucka Patti Posh shop facing north situate at village Pisangan in the district of Aimer. Deceased Rameshwarlal alleged that the said shop belonged to one Murlidhar son of Shri Hanotram Banear of Pisangan and it was martgaged by him with possession with Shri Harkaran on Bhadwa Sudi 5. Samwat year 1958 for securing a loan of Rs. 450/-% As disclosed by the deceased Rameshwarlal in the plaint, the mortgage amount was not to bear any interest and the mortgage was a usufructuary mortgage. It wag further alleged that Murlidhar died and his son Shrikishan by a registered sale deed dated 28-9-1953 transferred his rights to the plaintiff (deceased Remeshwarlal). According to the allegation in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973(6)WLN342
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. There were some posts of translators in the Secretariat of the Rajasthan State. Shri Chandrika Prasad Mathur, respondent No. 2, was allowed to hold one such post because of his earlier appointment as Translator on October 10, 1955, in the service of the former Ajmer State. Shyamsunder Lal Vyas, respondent No.3., and Moolchand Vyas respondent No. 4 were appointed as Translators on a temporary basis on April 15,1960. Prabhu Dayal Verma respondent No. 5, was similarly appointed as Translator on a temporary basis on March 13, 1961, while Laloo Lal Jain, respondent No. 6, was appointed as a temporary Translator on October 7, 1981. Udhav Chandra Chaturvedi, respondent No. 7, and Mohammed Yamin, respondent No. 8, were appointed as Translators on a temporary basis on April 18, 1963, and December 17, 1963, respectively. While these respondents were holding the posts of Translators as aforesaid, a competitive examination was held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner i...
Tag this Judgment!