Rajasthan Court January 1973 Judgments
Ladulal and anr. Vs. Mahendra Kumar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj238; 1973()WLN3
ORDERJagat Narayan, C.J. 1. These are connected revision applications against the orders passed by the District Judges of Ajmer and Jaipur City respectively discharging caveats filed by the petitioners on the ground that an affidavit in support of the 'caveat as prescribed by Rule 778 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules. 1952 was not filed. The following are the relevant rules contained in the High Court Rules :--'777. Anv person intending to oppose the issuing of a grant of probate or letters of administration must either personally or by his advocate file a caveat in the Court in the prescribed form. Notice of the filing of the caveat shall be given by the Court to the petitioner or his Advocate (form prescribed). 778. Where a caveat is entered after an application has been made for a grant of probate or letters of administration with or without the will annexed, the affidavit or affidavits in support shall be filed within fourteen davs of the caveat being lodged. Such affidavit shall ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ramniwasi Vs. Madanlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj295; 1973()WLN65
Kan Singh, J.1. The appeal before me is by a caveator under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 96, Civil P. C. and is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge. Jodhpur, dated 29-9-1970 granting letters of administration with a copy of the wills annexed regarding the estate of one Smt. Ramkanwari deceased in favour of the respondent Madanlal.2. Smt. Ramkanwari was a widow having no children and was aged about 80 at the time of her death on 30-12-1963. She became a widow at an early age. She had two houses, which she inherited from her husband, situated in what is known as Peepliwali Gali, Jodhpur. They are said to be worth Rs. 6,000/-. She also had household effects worth Rs. 200/- or so. Also she had an account with one Sunderdas Kanhaiyalal. Rs. 1126/- were in deposit with Sunderdas Kanhaiyalal in the name of the deceased. She had to pay Rs. 380/- to one Narayandas. On an application by one Anant Ram the Collector of Jodhpur took procee...
Tag this Judgment!Ramjilal and ors. Vs. Jawahar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ726; 1973()WLN44
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. The brief facts of this case, it appears are that on October 4, 1971, Jawahar and others made an application in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Alwar, stating therein that Khasras Nos. 721, 722 and 724, situate in village Sirmoli. District Alwar, as also some other land, situate in village Chikani, had been allotted to the applicants as also to Shiv Lal, Lila Ram and Ramji Lal. The parties had, by mutual agreement, divided the land in dispute. Khasras Nos. 721', 722 and 724 had fallen to the share of the petitioners and they had ever since been under their cultivatory possession and that the non-applicants Ramji Lal and others (party No. 2) had been trying to hold the land by use of force. It was, therefore, prayed that proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C.. be initiated, the disputed property be attached and a receiver should be appointed. Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Alwar, forwarded that application to the Station House Officer, Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Works Manager, Northern Railway Workshop Vs. Mathuradas, Painter
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN25
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This is a revision application by the Works Manager, Northern Railway Workshop, Lalgarh, Bikaner, against an order of the District Judge,, Bikaner, dismissing his appeal against an order of the the Payment of Wages Authority, passed on the application of Mathuradas respondent.2. Mathuradas was employed as a skilled painter in the Railway workshop drawing a salary below Rs. 280/-He was suspended by an order Ex. N-1 dated 27-8-66 passed by the Assistant Works Manager, the material portion of which runs as follows:Whereas a disciplinary proceeding against Shr Mathuradas T, No. 4045, Offg Sk. painter is contemplated. Now, therefore, the undersigned (the authority competent to placeRailway servant under susoension in terms of the Schedules I, II and III appended to the Discipline and Appeal Rules in Chapter XVII-B I; or any lower authority in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 1706 RI/ Proviso to Rule 1706 (I) P.I. hereby place the said Shri Mathuradass, T.No. 40...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Gopal Singh Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1973
Reported in: [1975]99ITR354(Raj); 1973()WLN14
J.P. Jain, J. 1. These are two references, one under the Wealth-tax Act and the other under the Gift-tax Act. The assessee in both the cases is the same and the basic question involved in both the references is common. We, therefore, propose to decide them by one common judgment.2. The facts leading to the wealth-tax reference are as follows: Thakur Gopalsingh was a jagirdar in the erstwhile State of Udaipur. His jagir was resumed in 1954 under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. Compensation in respect of the jagir was awarded to the jagirdar. The Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (Act No. XXVII of 1957), came into force on the first day of April, 1957. The matter relates to the wealth-tax assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59. The valuation dates for each year are September 30, 1956, and September 30, 1957, respectively. The compensation awarded in lieu of the jagir was not declared in the return of net wealth by the assessee and it was contended by him...
Tag this Judgment!Permanand and ors. Vs. Abdul Kadir and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj303; 1973()WLN36
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a tenants' second appeal directed against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge No. 3, Jaipur City in a suit for arrears of rent and eviction.2. The subject-matter of the litigation was a 'Nohra' used as a stable. It was known as 'Nawab Sahib-Ka-Nohra'. The defendants had taken this 'Nohra' on a monthly rent of annas 4. The suit was brought by the plaintiff-respondents for eviction of the defendant-appellants inter alia on the ground of personal necessity. The learned Munsif, before whom the suit was filed, decreed the suit for an amount of Rs. 15/15/- by way of arrears of rent and for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises.3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif the tenants went up in appeal to the Court of the District Judge, Jaipur City, who assigned the appeal for disposal to the learned Senior Civil Judge No. 3, Jaipur City. The learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the defendants' appeal and aff...
Tag this Judgment!Khubilal Vs. Power House Karamchari Girah Nirman Sahkari Samiti
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN6
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal and arises out of a suit for money filed against the defendant respondent, who is a Co-operative Society, registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act').2.The plaintiff-appellant is a member of the respondent Co-operative Society. On 28th August, 1961, he claims to have deposited Rs. 1,000/- by way of trust with the Society and obtained a pass book on 25.2.71. The plaintiff appellant gave a notice to the respondent society for the refund of the amount. Since the amount was not refunded, the plaintiff brought the suit against the society in the Court of the Additional Mansif, Udaipur. The Society contested the suit. It was admitted that Rs. 1000/- had been deposited by the plaintiff with the Society, but it was denied that it was by way of trust and it was asserted that it was an advance for the purpose of house according to the arrangement with the Society. It was further plead...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Sukhdeo Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN1
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This is a revision application by the State against the order of the District Judge, Ganganagar, setting aside the order of the Collector, Ganganagar, imposing a penalty.2. A deed of exchange of agricultural land was presented before the Registering Officer, Raisinghnagar, for registration. The value of the land was shown to be Rs. 6,000/ in it. The Registering Officer was of the opinion that the price had been under-valued. He accordingly submitted the document to the Collector, Ganganagar.3. The Collector held an inquiry and came to the conclusion that the market value of the land was Rs. 8,896/-. He accordingly directed the executant to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 108/- and also levied a penalty of Rs. 432/- equivalent to four times the deficit stamp duty. Aggrieved by this order of the Collector, the legal representatives of the deceased executant preferred an appeal under Section 47(A) Sub-clause (3) of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaption) Act, 1952, to t...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Narpat Singh Gehlot Vs. Shri Krishna Kumar and Chandra Lekha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN10
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. These are two connected revision applications by Dr. Narpat, Singh Gehlot, Assistant Professor, Electrical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur. They arise out of two suits for maintenance filed against him by his wife Smt. Chandralekha and his son Krishma Kumar alias Ajai respectively in the Court of Munsif City. Jodhpur, on 30-3-72 Dr. Narpat Singh Gehlot filed an application under Sections 9 and 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation in the alternative, in the court of Second Civil Judge, Kanpur, against his wife Smt. Chandra Lekha on 25-1-72 He filed an application in the Court of the City Munsif, Jodhpur, for stay of the proceedings in the two suits under Section 10, Civil PC read with Section 151, Civil P.C. Both these applications were rejected by the learned Munsif and the present revision applications have been filed against his orders.2. Dr. Narpat Singh Gehlot was married to Smt. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›