Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973(6)WLN841
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for eviction from two suit shops contiguous to each other, belonging to the same land lord, which shops were alleged to have been covered into one shop by removing the intervening partition wall.2. The two shops were situated in the town Nawa. They belonged to one Maji Dariab Kaur deceased. The shop situated on north side was taken on rent by the defendant from Maji Dariab Kaur on Falgun Vadi 1, Smawat 2009 on a yearly rent of Rs. 20/- The second shop situated on the south was taken on rent by the defendant 8 years thereafter on a monthly rent of Rs 3.75. Separate rent notes were executed for both the shops. Plaintiff-respondent Amar Chand purchased both the shops treating them as one and got executed a sale deed from Maji Dariab Kaur in his favour on 25-7-1964. The defendant was informed of the sale in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay him the rent inspite of the demand....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1974Raj31; 1973()WLN564
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a revision application by the defendant under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Small Cause Courts Ordinance, 1950 (Ordinance No. VIII of 1950) from the judgment and decree by Judge, Small Cause Court, Jaipur City, dated 18-5-70 by which an ex parte decree for Rs. 500/- was passed against the petitioner.2. Two points have been argued in support of the revision application. It is submitted in the first instance that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and secondly it is argued that there is absolutely no legal evidence on which the decree can be sustained.3. The plaintiff non-petitioner alleged in the plaint that he had entered into a contract with the Assistant Engineer, Engineering Cell (Fisheries)'. Government of Rajasthan. Jaipur, to supply two generators on hire for five davs from 28-5-69 onwards. But by his letter dated 28-5-69 received at about 5 p. m. marked Ex. 4, the Assistant Engineer cancelled the contract. The plaintiff's case i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973(6)WLN609
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. Messrs Garg Book Co., Jaipur, hereinafter called 'the assessee') sold to the University of Rajasthan and the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Printed roll lists during the assessment period from 1.4.61 to 31.3.62 and urged before the Sales Tax Officer that what the assessee sold was 'book' and therefore it was exempt trom payment of tax under Section 4 read with entry 10 of the Schedule to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The Sales Tax Officer negatived the contention. The assessese, however, succeeded before the Appellate Authority but failed before the Board of Revenue. A request for reference was made to the Board of Revenue, but the Board declined it. The assesses therefore moved this Court and obtained a direction for the Board of Revenue to refer the following question for answer:Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case. The 'Roll Registers' of the University of Rajasthan and the Board of Secondary Educat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1974Raj170; 1973()WLN764
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's revision from, the order of the Judge Small Causes Court Jaipur City dated 22-9-1970 by which the learned Judge directed return of the plaint as it involved a serious question as to the title of immovable property. The facts in brief are these:-- 2. Smt. Fatma and Md. Sadie obtained a decree for arrears of rent against the non-petitioner Md. Isag from the Court of Small Causes on 30-7-1968 and thereafter sold the property in question to the present plaintiff Alimuddin on 26-11-1968. Alimuddin filed the present suit for arrears of rent from 26-11-1968 to 28-2-1969. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that Smt. Fatma and Md. Sadiff were not the landlords but his landlords in fact were Smt. Meena and Muktrar who had previously obtained a decree for arrears of rent against him on 2-8-1968. It further appears that there was some litigation between Alimuddin on the one hand and Fatma and Md. Sadte on the other (Suit No. 45/68 deci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1974Raj28; 1973()WLN535
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for refund of money Paid by him in lieu of assignment of mortgagee rights in his favour by the defendant Jin Raj and others. It may be stated, here, that Jin Rai has died during the pendency of this appeal and his sons others than Jabar Chand, who was already on the record as defendant-respondent No. 2, have been impleaded as legal representatives. The house in respect of which the mortgagee rights were assigned by Jin Raj and others admittedly belonged to Bhika, who mortgaged the same with Jin Raj and his son Jabar Chand for Rs. 350/- by a registered mortgage deed dated 7-8-42. On 4-1-50 Bhika executed a gift deed in respect of this house in favour of his wife Smt. Ratni, who in her turn sold it on 10-12-55 to Tulchha and others. This sale deed was attested by Jin Raj and the documents in respect of this house which were in possession of Jin Raj, were also handed over by Mm to Mst. Ratni. Only five days after the exec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1974Raj69; 1973()WLN561
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J.1. This revision application by the plaintiff raises a question of court-fee. The plaintiff Shantilal Agarwal filed a suit in the Court, of Civil Judge. Dholpur for declaration that the will dated 5-7-1963 registered on 4-9-1963 executed by his father late Shri Shaymlal and his mother Smt. Champa Devi, defendant No. 1. was void and ineffective as against the plaintiff Shyamlal had died before the institution of the suit, but Smt. Champa Devi was alive and was impleaded as defendant No. 1. The suit was filed on 3-7-1967 and Smt, Champa Devi died some time in 1971. The validity of the will was challenged mainly on the grounds that the testator Shyamlal was not in a sound disposing mind at the time of executing the will, that the will had been got executed by undue influence, fraud and coercion, and that in any case Shyamlal had no right to dispose of the ancestral and joint family property by making a will in respect of it and thereby deprive the plaintiff of his legit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1974Raj43; 1973()WLN539
S.N. Modi, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the appellate judgment of the District Judge, Aimer, dated 15-1-1972 Whereby the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, decreeingthe suit for eviction and arrears of rent were set aside and the case was remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision in accordance with law after taking defendants' evidence.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are asfollows:--Plaintiff Rampal and his two brothers are the owners of the property situate on Katdhery Road. Ajmer and the Manager. Sasta Sahitya Press Ltd. and the Managing Director, Hind Sahitya Ltd., hereinafter called as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, are the tenants of the said property. The monthly rent of the property is Rs. 200/-. The tenancy is monthly in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. The present suit was instituted on 13-4-1967 for the recovery of the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 4300/- and for e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1974Raj72; 1973()WLN559
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. This is a special appeal directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court by his order dated July 16. 1971, dismissing the petitioner's application under Article 227 of the Constitution, of India. The circumstances leading to the present appeal are somewhat unusual and deserve recall for appreciating the contentions raised before us. Petitioners instituted a civil suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,750/- before the District Judge, Bhilwara. The basis of the suit was a document which the petitioner chose to call a 'chitti' but we prefer to call it 'the document'. The defendants objected to the admissibility of the document on the ground that it was not duly stamped. An issue was struck on this point and the learned District Judge relying on a decision of this Court Chauthmal v. State of Rajasthan 1967 Raj LW 446= (AIR 1967 Raj 179), held that the document was inadmissible. The plaintiff felt aggrieved and preferred an application under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!