Rajasthan Court January 1974 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.
Tulsi Das Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)255
J.P. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.6.1970 of the Sessions Judge, Udaipur, whereby the appellant has been convicted Under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment for causing the murder of his step-son Radhu Das.2. The prosecution case is that Geeta (P.W. 6) left her first husband Mangidas and came with Tulsidas accused in 'Nata' She brought Radhudas, her son aged four years, from her first husband Mangidas in the new home. On 22.1.69 Tulsidas went to attend a feast in the village Mavli with his step son Radhu Das and his nephew Bhagga son of Deva. It has not come in evidence whether Tulsidas actually attended the feast or not but he came back to his village Dhana Mandap. His step-son Radhu Das was sick and ultimately died. He was buried in the village in the presence of some villagers of the neighbourhood. While the persons, who attended the burial of Radhudas were sitting near a tank after having taken bath, Dhoola (P.W. 1) came from his...
Narsingh Das Vs. Vadi Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)231
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is an appeal from the order dated 3-10-1969 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur rejecting the application of the plaintiff-appellant under Order 38 Rule 5, Civil P.C.2. On 7-5-69 the plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit against the defendant-respondents for the recovery of Rs. 10,790/08 in the court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur. On 31-5-69 the plaintiff put in an application under Order 38 Rule 5. Civil P.C. praying that the defendants be directed to furnish security for the decretal amount totalling Rs. 12040.08 failing which cloth worth Rs. 3,000/- lying in their shop situated in Mehta Marked be attached. It was also prayed that the sum of Rs. 7,900/- due to the defendants from the persons mentioned in the list appended to the application be attached under Order 21 Rule 46, Civil P.C With the application the plaintiff Narsingh Das besides his own affidavit, filed the affidavit of one Govindram. In the affidavits it was stated th...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Kachhba and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)291
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. This is a State appeal filed against the order of acquittal passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Sanchore, acquitting Kachhba, Javta and Bhala of the charges Under Sections 452, 324 and 326/31 Indian Penal Code.2. The incident had taken place of 27th July, 1967, when according to the complainant all the three accused persons went armed with weapons to the Dhani of the complainant patty with a complaint that the cow belonging to the complainant party had caused damage to the crop of the accused persons. Verbal altercation took place between the parties which resulted in the scuffle and it is said that the accused persons gave blows with 'Dharia' and 'Tabbal' and caused injuries to the members of the complainant party. It is said that during this scuffle the accused persons also sustained injuries but those injuries have not been explained by the prosecution. A cross case was also launched against the complainant party which resulted ultimately in the order of conviction of ...
The State of Rajasthan Vs. Nanu Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)209
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jaipur, dated 22-3-71 in a suit for damages.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff, respondents Nanulal and Mst. Surajbai were the jagirdars of village Ladpura in Tehsil Lalsot. Their jagirs were resumed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, hereinafter to be referred as the Act. At the time of the resumption of the jagir, they did not possess khudkasht land and as such they applied to the Deputy Collector, Jagir, Under Section 14 of the Act for the allotment of khudkasht land. After considering their claim, the Collector, Jaipur, vide his order dated 12-10-61 allotted land measuring 120 bighas situate in (sic) Ghatelav, tehsil Dausa, district Jaipur, to the plaintiffs and one Kapoorchand as khudkasht land. This allotment order was received by the plaintiffs on 14-11-61 from the Deputy Collector, Jagir On 18-...
Prem Dayal and anr. Vs. Urban Improvement Trust and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)261
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. This is a civil revision directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated January 20, 1973 whereby he has modified an order of injunction dated June 3, 1972,2. The facts which it is necessary to recall for the disposal of this revision application, briefly stated are these In Bani Park Jaipur the Urban Improvement Trust (hereinafter called 'the U.I.T') prepared a scheme called 'Paramvir Major Shaitan Singh Scheme' for construction of a colony. Prem Dayal and Babu Lal Sharma, petitioner-plaintiffs before me, purchased two plots in auction bearing Nos. 76 and A.8 respectively. In the said scheme there was left, the petitioner-plaintiffs alleged, a triangular open space of land which they claimed was intended to be a park. In 1969 the U.I.T. allotted that plot bearing No. 26 measuring 80' x 120' to one Vipin Prabhakar. The plaintiffs alleged that plot No. A 26 encroached on the land intended to be the park. Complaints were made to th...
Chimnalal Vs. Nathmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN54
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. This is an application by way of revision under Section 435 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, dated January 22, 1971, whereby he upheld the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Niwalgarh, dated September 30, 1969, by which the petitioner's complaint was dismissed in view of Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The brief facts, which are relevant for the disposal of this petition, are these. Chimnalal petitioner had filed a complaint against accused Nathmal and Laduram on December 7, 1967, in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawalgarh, on the allegations that a place of land measuring 216 feet East-West and 216 feet North South, measuring 46, 656 sq. it. situate near Railway station, Dandlod Mukandgarh, belonged to the joint family of M/S Jawharmal Nandlal. It was purchased through a 'patta' dated Asad sudi 11 samvat 1999 and, on October 12, 1960, it was given on...
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Kishore Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN60
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. These two are petitions for a revision of the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, dated October 24, 1972, by which he did not allow the prosecution to examine those witnesses who had not been examined on its behalf in the committing court and closed its evidence.2. A complaint regarding the alleged commission of offence under Section 342, 323, 354 and 376/511 was filed by Smt. Kanchan in the court of Munsif-Magistrate, Jhalawar, on March 17, 1971, against the five non-petitioners. The learned Magistrate sent it to the police for investigation. In the meantime he registered the case on May 1, 1971 against non-petitioners Kishore Singh and Ram Narain & dismissed the complaint against the remaining three accused. He did not, however, proceed to record the evidence against the two accused and thought it proper to wait for the report of the police.3. The police presented a charge-sheet against all the five accused (the present non-petitioners) in the court of t...
Bhanwarlal Vs. Bhairulal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)167
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. No one has appeared on behalf of the non-petitioner inspite of service of notice.2. Heard learned counsel. The short question for decision in this case is whether the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Ajmer, has committed an error of law in the exercise of his jurisdiction in making the order dated September 18, 19713. It will be sufficient to say that the present petitioner obtained a decree against the non-petitioner for Rs. 500/-, with costs. The non-petitioner did not pay the decretal amount, and the petitioner had to file an application for the execution of the decree by attachment of a part of his salary. The non-petitioner was an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, and the Corporation reported that his salary was Rs. 273.32 consisting of the basic pay of Rs. 150/- dearness allowance of Rs. 94.50, house-rent allowance of Rs. 20/- and personal way of Rs. 8.82. The learned Judge of the court below however refused to execute the decree by attach...
Gangadas Vs. Moolchand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)225
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is an appeal by Gangadas Under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, against the order of the District Judge, granting Probate in respect of the will dated 25-6-65 executed by deceased Haridas. The following pedigree table will reveal the relationship of the parties: Girdharilal | ______________________________________________________________________ | | | | | Achaldas Haridas Mathuradas Gangadas Mst. Mangi (dead) (Deceased (dead) (Appellant (respdt. testator) | Caveator) No. 2 _______________________________ | | Swaroopprakash Moolchand (respdt. No. 1)Deceased Haridas was a bachelor, Achaldas and Mathuradas had predeceased Haridas. Girdharilal died long ago Haridas died on 17-10-65. In the absence of any will left by Haridas, the property of Haridas would have devolved on Gangadas being the brother. Haridas had very good relations with Pratapchand. On 18-6-65 Haridas went to Gwalior (Laskar) to attend the marriage of Pratap chand's son. The marriage pa...
Nathmal and anr. Vs. Phool Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)224
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. Mr. Porwal has argued that the order of the trial court dated January 12, 1972 is not correct in so far as the application of the plaintiffs dated February 18, 1970 regarding the production of the account books is concerned. The learned Counsel has stated that he is not aggrieved against the order in so far as it relates to the promissory note.2. The plaintiffs (petitioners) had stated in their aforesaid application dated February 18, 1970 that they wanted to produce the evidence in question which, according to the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners in this Court, was for the production of account books, because they wanted to lead evidence in rebuttal of the defendant's plea in regard to consideration and payment. The learned trial judge has, however, stated in his aforesaid order dated January 12, 1972 that the learned Counsel for the defendant had clearly stated before him that he did not want to press the question of consideration. The questio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »