Rajasthan Court February 1974 Judgments
Karim Vs. Nasebo and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-28-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)258
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal filed by Karim complainant by special leave granted Under Section 417(3), Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned Munsiff Magistrate, Phalodi, dated 12th September, 1970, by which Mst. Nasebo, Mubarak, Hefiz, Ismail and Ishaq were acquitted of the offences punishable Under Sections 447 and, 379 I.P.C.2. The complainsnt's case against all the five respondents was that on 4th November, 1966, they forcibly entered upon his land comprised of Khasra No. 561 measuring 15 Bighas, situated at some distance from Phalodi, and dishonestly took away his crops of Bajra, Moth, Til Gawar etc. of the value of Rs. 400/. According to the complainant, this pieces of land was allotted to him by an order of the Tehsildar, Phalodi, and that its actual possession was given to him by the Patwari of that circle in pursuance of the order of allotment. The complainant alleged to have made a report of thin incident to the police station, Phalodi, but his contention was that...
Tag this Judgment!Gaurishanker Vs. Magharam
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Raj238
Sohan Nath Modi, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as principal and Rupees 1,096/- as interest total Rs. 5,096/- on the basis of a khata dated 10-10-1967.2. It was alleged that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,000/- from the plaintiff on 10-10-67 and executed a khata (Ex. 1) in his own hand-writing in the bahi of the plaintiff and promised torepay the same with interest at the rate of fifteen annas per cent per month.3. Defence was of total denial. The defendant denied the execution of the khata Ex. 1 as also receipt of the consideration. Further plea taken was that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff was not holding money-lending licence at the date he advanced the money. Various other pleas were also raised but no argument was advanced in respect of them.4. The learned Additional District Judge held that the khata (Ex. 1) was genuine and it was executed by the defendant f...
Tag this Judgment!Shiveji Prasad and anr. Vs. Motilal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)233
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit for injunction.2. At the time of admission of the appeal learned Counsel for the appellant abandoned all the grounds taken in the memo of appeal except that the lower court should have clarified that the defendants would not be restrained from making an opening in the latrine of their house so that their sweeper may come by the lane in question to remove the night soil. I have, therefore, heard learned Counsel for the parties on this point. With their help I have examined the site plan also & find that there is a latrine is the defendants' house contiguous to the lane in question .The defendants' right to use the lane in question as a passage for their sweeper has been recognised by the court below. In this view of the matter the defendants have undoubtedly a right to make an opening in their latrine which is said to be an ordinary type of latrine from which the sweeper may remove the night soil and clean the la...
Tag this Judgment!Mansukhram and anr. Vs. Gyanchand Sumatchand and Two ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)283
S.N. Modi, J.1. These two appeal arise out of two suits which were consolidated and tried together. They were disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Alwar by a common judgment dated 25.5.1972. Suit No. 9/66(23/67) was instituted on 19.7.66 by Mansukh Ram against Firm Gyanchand Sumat Chand, a partnership firm carrying on bsiness at Kedalganj, Alwar, and its two partners Sumatchand and Tikamchand for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- as principal and Rs. 580/- by wav of int rest total Rs. 10,580/, on the basis of a promissory note dated 22-1-1966. It was alleged that Firm Gyanchand Sumat Chand borrowed a sum of rupees ten thousand from Mansukhram on 22-1-66 and in lieu thereof its partners Sumatcnand snd Tikamchand executed pronote Ex. 1 and receipt Ex. 2 and agreed to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum. It was further alleged that when the amount was not repaid inspite of oral demand, a notice was issued on 28-3-1966 calling upon the defendants to make repa...
Tag this Judgment!Chandmal and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)277
Shinghal, J.1. Heard learned counsel.2. As this case must succeed on the short ground that site-plan Ex. 1 was taken in evidence by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Malpura, at the back of the present petitioners and without hearing them in regard to it, it is not necessary to state all the facts. It will be sufficient to say that procee-dirgs were taken in regard to the dispute relating to certain fields, Under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate made an order on October 15, 1971 declaring the possession of the parties It appears from the record that the evidence of the parties was concluded, and their arguments were heard, on September, 16, 1971. The case was reserved for orders on 24-9-1971. The order was however not ready on 24-9-1971, & 7-10-1971 was fixed as the next date for making it. On that date also, the order was not ready & the case was adjourned to 14-10-1971. The order was not ready on that date, and the cue was adjourned to October 15, 19...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council and anr. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)247
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal filed by special leave Under Section 417(3), Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of the learned Municipal Magistrate First Class Court No. 2, Jaipur, dated 20th August, 1969 by which Kanhaiya Lal, respondent, was acquitted of the offence punishable Under Section 7/18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The brief facts giving rise to This appeal may be stated as follows. On 6th May, 1966, at about 6 a.m. Kanhaiya Lal was carrying at in containing cow milk for sale. He had obtained a licence for selling cow milk from the Municipal Council Jaipur. In the way at Mirza Ismail Road, near Gopal Misthan Bhandar, he met Shri Prem Chand, Food Inspector of the Municipal Council, Jaipur, who disclosed his identity to the former and intimated to him that be was purchasing sample of milk for analysis. Thereafter the Food Inspector purchased twenty-four ounces of cow milk from Kanhaiyalal for 56 P. The Food Ins...
Tag this Judgment!Aditya Prakash and ors. Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN199
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff-landlords from the appellate judgment and decree by the Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer who upheld the decree against the original tenant Ramjidas, and one sub-tenant Heeralal, but dismissed the suit against the heirs of Suryanand-another subtenant in respect of the ground-floor of the suit premises.2. It is undisputed that the premises in question were originally let out to Ramjidas who sublet the ground-floor (except one Baithak) on rent of Rs. 16/- to Suryanand In the suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiffs, not only the tenant Ramjidas but the alleged sub-tenants Heeralal and Suryanand were also impleaded on the ground that a part of the premises had been sublet to them without the consent of the land-lord. Two additional grounds ware relied upon for ejectment, viz. defaults in payment of rent and nuisance. All the defendants resisted the suit and after trial the learned Munsiff, Ajmer City (East) held that all the three grounds ...
Tag this Judgment!Sohanlal Vs. Jhumarmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)295
S.N. Modi, J.1. This first appeal by the plaintiff Sohan Lal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge,Churu, dated 30.9.72 in a money suit.2. The facts briefly stated are that on 10.4.65 corresponding to Chait Sud 9, Smt. 2022, the defendant respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a rukka in his own handwriting in favour of the plaintiff with stipulation to repay the amount along with interest at the rate of nine percent per annum. On 11-3-68 corresponding to Pnagan Sudi 12, Smt. 2024 the defendant repaid Rs. 500/- through his agent Surajmal who made an endorsement on the back of the rukka and signed it Subsequently, on 21.9.68 the defendant also wrote a letter to make repayment by Ramnavmi, that is, on Chait Sudi 9, Smt. 2026. When the loan was not repaid, the plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal arises, on 5.4.62 for the recovery of Rs. 10,000/-. In the plaint it was alleged that the payment dated 11...
Tag this Judgment!Khairathi Vs. Devi Sahai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Raj131; 1974(7)WLN71
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant along with his brother Heera filed a suit for issue of perpetual injunction in respect of his right of scavenging but the same was dismissed by the Munsiff, Raigarh on a preliminary point that the suit was' barred under Section 9, Civil P. C. The judgment and decree bu the trial Court were affirmed in appeal by the Civil Judge. Alwar and conseauentlu the plaintiff has come in second appeal to this Court.2. The parties are Harijans and are engaged in the occupation of scavenging. The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint was that thev had been exercising right of scavenging (Brit-Khakrobi) in Danda Kakwari. a locality in the town of Raigarh, District Alwar, since their fore-fathers as this right had been mortgaged with their ancestors by one Jamadar Pishta about 60 years ago in consideration of a sum of Rs. 200/-. They alleged that the residents of the locality, i.e. their Jaimans want to get scavenging done by them. Their allegation is that ...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Kauri Vs. Deepa Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)234
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a wife's appeal from the decree of restitution of conjugal rights granted against her in favour of the husband by the District Judge Sri Ganganagar by his judgment dated 31-10-1970.2. The marriage between the spouses took place on 13th July, 1965 and the wife went to the husband's house about a year after the marriage on the completion of 'Muklawa' ceremony, and lived with him for 3 days only. The husband's case is that thereafter the appellant's brother took her from his house and since then the appellant has never returned to the husband. It is alleged by the respondent that he called Panchayat of the members of his community several times so that some effort may be made by the Panchas to bring the appellant to the respondent's house. It was thus alleged that the appellant had withdrawn from the society of the respondent without any reasonable excuse.3. The appellant-non petitioner resisted the respondent's application on the ground of cruelty and pleaded tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »