Rajasthan Court January 1973 Judgments
Jhuma Ram Vs. Prami Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj234; 1973()WLN147
Beri, J.1. This is a special appeal under Section 18 of the Raiasthan High Court Ordinance. 1949 directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 12-4-1967 whereby he dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's appeal.2. In order to appreciate the nature and the scope of the controversy it will be necessary to recall the various stages of the litigation between the parties. Mool Chand and Jhuma Ram two brothers migrated from Pakistan to India and settled in 10 G Chhoti Tehsil Ganganagar in 1947. The family was allotted 37 1/2 bishas of agricultural land in the name of Mool Chand, who was the Karta of the joint Hindu familv. Mool Chand died on 19-10-1952. Laxmi Bai widow of Mool Chand applied under Section 9 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, (hereinafter called 'the Act') for the partition of the land allotted to Mool Chand. Jhuma Ram resisted this application on the ground that the property was ioint Hindu family property allotted to the family in s...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanni and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1973
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1336; 1973()WLN153
Lodha, J.1. The above two appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur dated 2-5-1970 by which he convicted Dhanni under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The co-accused Tota. Nasira, Juma, Subhan and Patri were, however, acquitted of all the charges. Aggrieved by his conviction Dhanni has filed appeal to this Court which has been registered as D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 337/70. So also dissatisfied with the order of acauittal passed in favour of the other five accused, the State has filed appeal and the same has been registered as D- B. Criminal Appeal No. 768/71. At this stage, we may mention that during the pendencv of these appeals. Tota has died. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State affainst Tota has abated and we are therefore, only concerned with the five accused, namely Dhanni, Nasira, Juma, Subhan and Patri.2. There is a field Khasra No. 476 called 'Bandhwala Khet' situated in village Chulhera. ...
Tag this Judgment!Brijlal and anr. Vs. Premchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj124; 1973()WLN116
Sohan Nath Modi, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for malicious prosecution.2. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs' case as narrated in the plaint is like this:3. On 26-12-1956 the defendant-respondent filed a complaint under Section 41/44 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act. 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act, against the plaintiffs in the Court of the City Magistrate, Aimer, allegine therein that plaintiff No. 1 Briilal was the landlord of the defendant, that plaintiff No. 2 Jagmohan was the rent collecting agent of plaintiff No. 1 and that on 29-11-1956 the plaintiffs had cut off electric connection of the premises occupied by the defendant and were therefore liable to prosecution. The complaint wag tried by the First Class Magistrate, Ajmer, who acquitted plaintiff No. 2 but convicted plaintiff No. 1 under Section 41/44 of the Act and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 100/-. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aimer, acquitted plaintiff No. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwandas Vs. Nasir Mohd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj237; 1973()WLN41
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2520/-.2. The plaintiff-respondent Nasir Mohd. Khan was the owner of a truck bearing registration No. RJL 4660. He sold this truck to the defendant-appellant on 15-10-1964 for Rs. 8000/- and handed over its possession to the defendant. An agreement in that connection was executed between the parties which is Ex. 1 on the record. Under the terms of the agreement all the taxes pertaining to the truck for the period prior to 15-10-1964 were to be Paid by the plaintiff and the taxes pertaining to the period subseauent to 15-10-1964 were to be paid by the defendant. The Sales Tax Officer. Tonk, realised Rs. 2220/- on 11-3-1968 and Rs. 300/-on 13-3-1968 from the plaintiff on account of goods tax and penaltv in resoect of the said truck. The details of the goods-tax and penalty arp as follows :--1.Rs.60/-as penalty for the period from October 1964 to March 19652.Rs.300/-as penalty for the period from...
Tag this Judgment!Dhool Singh Vs. Smt. Bardhu Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj90; 1973()WLN47
Kan Singh, J. 1. This Is a plaintiffs second appeal directed against the appellate judgment of the Senior Civil judge.Baran, dated 2-5-64 affirming the decree dismissing the suit by the Munsif, Baran and arises out of a suit for possession of a portion of a house situated in village Antah, district Kota. 2. Acrording to the (plaintiff), the house in question, in a portion of which defendant-respondent Kishore Singh now represented by his legal representatives, was living belonged to one Nathaji. Nathaji had a son Pannalal who died in 1932. He had two daughters, Dhool Singh, the plaintiff, is the son of one daughter and Kishore Singh, defendant was the son of another daughter. Pannalal had a son Dbannalal who died during the lifetime of his father Pannalal. Pannalal was survived by his widow Kesar Bai. Kesar Bai was alleged to have gifted the house in question to the plaintff Dhool Singth and the same was evidenced by a registered gift deed Ex. I. On 25-10-1944 the plaintiff Dhool Singh...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Krishan Joshi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1973
Reported in: [1975]101ITR260(Raj); 1973()WLN289
B.P. Beri, J.1. These two applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are made by Gopal Kishan Joshi, an individual assessee, for the years 1965-66 and 1964-65, respectively.2. The assessee is a confectioner carrying on business at Bikaner. He manufactures sweets and other eatables and also sells confectionery articles which he purchases on wholesale from another merchant. He submitted his return -for the year 1965-66, showing gross turnover in the sum of Rs. 2,34,576. Breaking up the aforesaid amount the assessee said that the sweets manufactured by him amounted to Rs. 75,000 and those that were purchased by him amounted to Rs. 1,59,576. According to the assessee the gross profit rate of the confectionery manufactured by him was 17.5% and for the one that was purchased by him it was 8'5%, yielding an average profit of 11.2%. The Income-tax Officer, not finding the books of account entirely reliable, estimated the turnover at Rs. 2,50,000 and calculated the average r...
Tag this Judgment!Jugal Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj244; 1973()WLN52
Beri, J.1. This appeal and other 285 appeals detailed in Schedule 'A' under Section 18 of the Raiasthan High Court Ordinance are directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this court dated 18-4-1972 wherebv he dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants holding that they never acquired any khatedari rights in the agricultural holdings in dispute.2. The circumstances which it is necessary to notice for the disposal of these appeals briefly stated are these: In the erstwhile State of Bikaner there were two Jagirs called Chhattargarh and Satta-sar. Under the Raiasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act (Act VI of 1952) these Jagirs werp resumed on 1-7-1954 and 15-8-1954 respectively. It is alleged by the petitioners-appellants that prior to the resumption the Jaeirdars had admitted them as tenants in their respective agricultural holdings on the rates of rent prevailing in the former State of Bikaner. After resumption the anppliants contend that the State of Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Rahim Bux Vs. Illahi Bux and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj294; 1973()WLN207
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises under the following circumstances.2. The plaintiff-respondents instituted a suit in the Court of Munsif Pali on 23-12-1968 for the redemption of the mortgage in respect of a house situated in the town of Pali. According to the plaintiffs, the house was mortgaged with possession in Samvat year 1991 for Rs. 199/- with the defendant. It was stipulated that the mortgagor shall not redeem the house for five years and further the mortgagee could spend any amount upto Rs. 100/- for the maintenance of the house, but for spending any amount in excess of Rs. 100/- prior permission of the mortgagor would be necessary. In the circumstances the redemption of the house was claimed for an amount of Rs. 199/-plus Rs. 100/- as expenses for the maintenance of the house. The defendant denied that the property was mortgaged with him. He claimed that it was his own ancestral property. As regards the mortgage deed it was pleaded that the same was inadm...
Tag this Judgment!Lt. Col. Maharaj Himmatsingh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj254; 1973()WLN107
Beri, J.1. These appeals are directed against a iudgment of the learned Single Judge dated July 27, 1972, but. it is based on the reasons given in the iudgment dated April 18. 1972 in 492 writ petitions, relating to lands occupied by persons in Raiasthan Canal Area.2. The appellants' case is that the Jagirdar of Sattasar sranted in 1948. large chunks of land to the appellants and issued 'sanads' to them. The Sattasar Jaeir was resumed under the Raiasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act (Act VI of 1952] on August 15. 1954. The appellants Paid all amounts due against them by wav of land revenue on the said lands from the vears 1948 to 1955 and they became Khatedar. tenants within the meaning of the word in the Bikaner State Tenancv Act. The appellants also contend that the revenue or rent have been realised from them for the period from 1953 to 1962.3. On October 15, 1955, the Raiasthan Tenancy Act. 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Tenancv Act') came into force. Under Section 15 t...
Tag this Judgment!Janki Vallabh Vs. Moolchand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj168; 1973()WLN38
V.P. Tyagi, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised only one question to be decided by this Court in this execution second appeal, and it is whether the sale of a property which was not attached in execution but was put to sale and if no objection to such a sale was taken by the judgment-debtor at a previous stage of execution, would it constitute a constructive res judicata and preclude the judgment-debtor from raising a question about the validity of sale without attachment at a subsequent stage of the execution. 2. In the present case, the decree-holder obtained a decree in the year 1959, but during the pendency of the suit the houses belonging to the defendant judgment-debtor were got attached under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After the decree was passed, execution proceedings were taken on 7-2-1962 but that execution petition was dismissed for default on 14-4-1962. The second execution proceeding was initiated on 21-2-1970 against Janki Vallabh who ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »