Rajasthan Court September 1973 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. B.K. Dutta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN663
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit instituted by him in the Court of Munsiff, Ajmer City (Rast), Ajmer on 22 -11-1963 praying that a declaration may be granted in his favour that the order of Additional Commercial Superintendent (East), Western Railway, Ajmer dated 23 1.1961 marked Ex A 28 is void, illegal and ultra-vires and that the plaintiff should be deemed to continue in service of the Western Railway. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsiff but on appeal by the plaintiff it has been decreed. Hence the Union of India has come in appeal to this Court.2. The facts necessary for decision of the points canvassed before me lie within a naarow compass and may be stated as below.3. The plaintiff who was working as Tickst Collector on 23.9.1958 at Bhuj (which for the aske of brevity has been described as BVJ), is alleged to have received Rs. 17 50 paisa from 35 Third Class passengers for false reservation in Bhuj-Ahemdabad through coach of Tra...
V.N. Khanna Vs. Official Liquidator, Golecha Properties (P) Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-1973
Reported in: 1974WLN729
1. This special appeal by Shri V.N. Khanna is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 10.9.1972, where by he dismissed the appeal as barred by time.2. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in this appeal it is necessary to state the relevant facts. The Official Liquidator Golecha Properties (Private) Ltd., (hereinafter referred as the 'Official Liquidator'), invited claims from the creditors of company. In response to the notice the appellant sent his claim on the basis of a Hundi alleged to have been executed by the company in his favour. The original Hundi verified by an Oath Commissioner was sent by the appellant under a registered cover which was received in office of the Official Liquidator on 21.4.1969. The Official Liquidator required the original Hundi for the scrutiny of the claim. He, therefore, by his letter dated 20.2.1971 called upon the appellant to submit the original Hundi which the appellant tried to send to the company by di...
Sher Ali and ors. Vs. Nasirkhan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj150; 1973()WLN622
ORDERC.M. Lodha, Adv.1. This is a revision application by Sher Ali and others, legal representatives of Asghar Ali deceased-plaintiff against the appellate order by the Additional District Judge. Bundi dated 3-11-1971 by which the learned Judge upheld the order of the Munsiff, Bundi dated 26-5-1970 in Civil Suit No. 127 of 1967, returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.2. The case has rather a chequered history and in order to appreciate the points canvassed before me it would be necessary to give a few relevant facts giving rise to the present suit3. There is a 'Dargah' popularly known as 'Mira Sahib Ka Durgah' situated on a hill in the city of Bundi. It is common case of the parties that the 'Durgah' is a religious place meant for use by the Muslim Community for offering prayers. It appears that Asghar Ali was looking after it as a 'Mutwalli'. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Nasir Shah and Habib Shah were dissatisfied by the management of the Durgah by Asghar Ali and con...
Tara Singh Vs. Smt. Shakuntala
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj21; 1973()WLN657
ORDERThe petition is dismissed. In view of the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.'It is in these circumstances that the question falls to be considered whether the husband was entitled to come in appeal when obviously the wife's petition has failed. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the husband is affected adversely by the decision of the learned District Judge that the parties were still continuing as husband and wife and this judgment would stand against the husband if at all he wants to rehabilitate himself in married life by taking another companion.6. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband, on the other hand, stresses that it is the ultimate result of the case that should govern the question of appeal ability of the order at the instance of a party in whose favour the order is passed and not the decision on any particular issue that may have arisen in the case. Learned counsel for the respondent maintains that the decision of any i...
Hanuman Prasad Vs. Gaindi Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj41; 1973()WLN626
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J.1. This revision application by the defendant-tenant raises an interesting question though a short one. The question is whether a tenant who having obtained benefit under Section 13-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') again makes a default in the payment of rent for six months is liable to have his defence against eviction struck out under Section 13 (6) of the Act on account of his failure to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub-section (4) or sub-section (5)? It arises in the following circumstances:--2. The defendant-petitioner took the suit shop on rent from the plaintiff-non-petitioner on 1-12-1953 on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent. During the pendency of the suit Section 13-A was introduced and in accordance with Section 13-A the tenant paid the rent, interest and costs with the result that thesuit for...
Nathu and ors. Vs. Laxmi NaraIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj153; 1973()WLN1029
Kan Singh, J.1. The second appeal before me was lodged by four appellants Nathu, Ramdeo, Gokul and Hira on 5-4-1971. It was admitted on 29-7-1971. During the pendency of the appeal Nathu one of the appellants, expired and learned counsel for the respondent moved an application for holding that the entire appeal has abated, as the appellant Nathu was survived by two female heirs who had not been brought on record within the period of limitation. Learned counsel maintains that as Nathu was one of the appellants and the decree against all the appellants proceeded on a ground common to all, the appeal abates in its entirety.2. Learned counsel for the appellants contested this position. It was, however, admitted by him that Nathu had expired in February, 1972 and he had left behind two female heirs who were not brought on record within the period of limitation. Learned counsel, however, submits that according to the latest pronouncements of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ratanlal v...
Jagan Singh Vs. Chotey Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN654
C.M. Lodha, J.1. Plaintiff respondent Chotey Lal filed the suit out of which this appeal arises in the court of Munsiff Sikar for cancellation of a sale deed and for possession of the land in dispute Khasra Nos. 318, 378 and 379 situated in Sikar measuring 7 Bighas. He alleged that the defendant by practising fraud got a sale deed of the land in question executed by him on 15-9-61 in the defendant's favour without paying any price. It was further alleged that the sale was void ab-initio being in contravention of Section 42, second proviso (b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') as the plaintiff was a member of Scheduled Tribe whereas the defendant was not a member of Scheduled Tribe. It was prayed that the sale-deed dated 15-9-61 be declared void ab-initio and a decree for possession of the land in dispute and the dwelling house standing thereon be granted in favour of the plaintiff.2. The suit was resisted by the defendant inter alia on the ground ...
Basantilal Vs. Mt. Sajjan Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj26
B.P. Beri, C.J. 1. Appellant Basantilal valued this appeal at Rs. 20,000/-and therefore, the Registrar by his order dated August 18. 1972, admitted it. An ad interim injunction was claimed for which notice was issued to the respondents and some of them are present before us. An objection has been taken that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to admit this appeal and its valuation has been erroneously fixed.2. We might notice a few facts necessary for the disposal of the point raised before us. On October 3, 1963, Basantilal obtained a decree against Manoharlal in the sum of Rs. 7640/- exclusive of costs. Basantilal levied execution on December 3, 1963, and Pot attached a house in Mahavir Chowk. Tonk. Judgment-debtor Manoharlal's wife Smt. Saiian Devi. objected to the attachment but was unsuccessful. She, therefore, instituted a suit under Order 21 Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure on June 3, 1963, claiming the house under attachment to be her own. Manohar Lal was made a party to th...
Basanti Lal Vs. Mst. Sajjan Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN651
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. Appellant Basantilal valued this appeal at Rs. 20,000/-and, therefore, the Registrar by his order dated August 18, 1972, admitted it. An add interim injunction was clamed for which notice was issued to the respondents and some of them are present before us. An objection has been taken that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to admit this appeal and its valuation has been erroneously fixed.2. We might notice a few facts necessary for the disposal of the point raised before us. On October 3, 1963, Basantilal obtained a decree against Manoharlal in the sum of Rs. 7640/exclusive of costs. Basantilal levied execution on December 3, 1963, and got attached a house in Mahavir Chowk, Tonk. Judgment debtor Manoharlal's wife Smt. Sajjan Devi, objected to the attachment but was unsuccessful. She, therefore, instituted a suit under Order 21 Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure on June 3, 1963, claiming the house urder attachment to be her own. Manohar Lal was made a party to this...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›