Rajasthan Court February 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.
Sheo NaraIn and anr. Vs. Mahada Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)168
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This is a petition for revision of the appellate judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, dated November 3, 1970 by which he has upheld the conviction of petitioners Sheo Narain and Bhura Ram for offences Under Section 323 I.P.C. but reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 200/. each.2. The incident giving rise to the petition is alleged to have taken place on June 3, 1959, in a portion of field No. 341 of Dhani Jhuntha, of village Bbanpur, tehsil Chirawa. A complaint regarding the incident was filed by Mahada Ram P.W. 2 on June 17, 1959, against six persons including petitioners Sheo Narain and Bhura Ram. It was alleged by him that he was beaten by the accused in his portion of the field as they nursed a grievance against him on account of his possession on his own portion of the field It was alleged that while he was plugging his field on June 3, 1959, the accused came and beat him with 'lathis'. It was stated further that he (Mahadaram) went to lodge a report...
Dr. Gopilal Garg and anr. Vs. the Adrashnagar Co-operative Housing Soc ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)228
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The facts and event leading to This second appeal by the plaintiffs of course long but the point involved is short.2. It appears that the respondent Cooperative Housing Society, Ajmer (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Society') sold plot No. 92, situated in Ajmer to the appellant Dr. Gopilal by a sale deed dated 15-5-1936, A dispute having arisen between Dr. Gopilal and the Society the matter was referred to arbitration, and while it was pending before the Arbitrator Dr. Gopilal transferred by sale the plot in question to one Phoolchand, who is plaintiff No. 2 in the present suit by a sale deed dated 6-4-1956. The Arbitrator gave the awrad on 8-4-1956, marked Ex. 1 and held that the sale by Dr. Gopilal to Phoolchand was unauthorized and could not be recognised. He further held that the sale by Society of plot No. 92 in favour of Dr. Gopilal be also annulled, and the plot would revert to the Society which shall refund to Dr. Gopilal the price of Rs. 390/- r...
Kishansingh and ors. Vs. Surajprakash and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Raj209
S.N. Modi, J.1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Ajmer, dated 29-3-72.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :The sale-deed in favour of the appellant Ghisaram in respect of the property described in para No. 1 of the plaint was written on 22-1-66 on behalf of Surajprakash, R.C. Bhargava, Santoshkumar,Rama Bhargava, Laxmankumar and minor Sudhir Kumar sons of late Pt. Shyamsunder Bhargava and their mother Mst. Kalawati. The sale deed was signed by the three sons of late Pt. Shyamsunder, namely, Surajprakash, R.C. Bhargava and Santoshkumar only and not by others. By this sale deed the property was sold for Rs. 19,000/- out of which Rs. 5,000/- were paid as earnest money. The vendee got the sale deed compulsorily registered so far as the three executants were concerned on 16-8-67, but did not pay the remaining sale price amounting to Rs. 14,000/-. The three vendor-executants, namely, Surajprakash, R.C. Bhargava and Santoshku...
Mohanlal Vs. Kesraram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)289
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit for recovery of money. The plaintiff respendent Kesraram instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 12000/- as principal and Rs. 1472/- by way of interest total Rs. 13472/. on the basis of a rukka executed by defendant appellant Mohanlal and his brother rspondent No. 2 Ramchander on 21-7-67. The plaintiff respondent Mohanlal alleged that the defedants its had purchased moth fodder worth Rs. 12000/- and executed the said rukka. The defendants admitted execution of the rukka dated 21-7-67 but pleaded that the plaintiff and the defendants were partners and this rukka was executed without going into the partnership accounts. The defendants also pleaded repayment of Rs. 12498/70 and produced certain receipts in support of the various repayment's made by them. It was also pleaded that the rukka amounted to a promissory note and being insufficiently stamped was not admissible in evidence. A plea of territorial jurisdition was also raised o...
Kishan Singh and ors. Vs. Suraj Prakash and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN81
S.N. Modi, J.1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Ajmer, dated 29-3-722. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows. The sale-deed in favour of the appellant Ghisaram in respect of the property described in para no 1 of the plaint was written on 22-1-66 on behalf of Surajprakash, R.C. Bhargava, Santoshkumar, Rama Bhargava, Laxmankumar and minor Sudhir Kumar sons of late Pt. Shyamsunder Bhargava and their mother Mst. Kalawati. The sale-deed was signed by the three sons of late Pt. Shyamsunder, namely, Surajprakash, R.C. Bhargava and Santoshkumar only and not by others By this sale-deed the property was sold for Rs. 19000/- out of which Rs. 5000/-were paid as earnest money. The vendee got the sale-deed compulsorily registered so far as the three executants were concerned on 16.9.67, but did not pay the remaining sale-price amounting to Rs. 14000 The three vendor-executants, namely, Surajprakash, S.C. Bhargava and Santoshkumar there...
Chauth Mal Vs. Hagami Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN202
C.M. Lodha, J.1. These are two connected appeals directed against the judgment and decree by the Senior Civil Judge, Udaipur dated 24.9.1966.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows : One Ganesh Lal died leaving behind widow Smt. Ganga Bai He had no sort and consequently Smt Ganga Bai adopted respondent No. 2 Roshan Lal to her husband Ganeshlal by a registered adoption deed dated 30.10.1950, a copy of which has been placed on the record and marked Ex. A 3. Shortly thereafter she executed an agreement to sell the house in question belonging to her husband for Rs. 800/- in favour of appellant Chauthmal and obtained Rs. 200/ in cash as part of the sale price. A copy of this agreements has also been placed on the record and marked Ex A. 2. It was signed by Roshan Lal also. It may be relevant to state, here that Chauthmal was already occupying a part of the house i. e. two 'media', a covered stair-case and also an open terrace as a tenant of Ganeshlal. However, before the sa...
Municipal Council Udaipur and anr. Vs. Kishan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)124
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. Since common question of law is involved in all these five appeals filed by the Municipal Council, Udaipur, for dismissing its complaints against the respondents Under Sections 235, 253 and 255 of the Rajisthan Muncipalities Act, 1959, therefore, I propose to dispose them of by one judgment.2. In order to understand the nature and the question involved, it will be proper to set out the relevant facts.3. On 3rd of December, 1971, the Municipal Council issued certain instructions exercising its power vested in it Under Section 235 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act prohibiting the slaughter of the animals within the Municipal area except the slaughterhouse. It is said that respondent Khema in case No. 275 of 1972 like other respondents was found slaughtering the goats in front of his shop. Shri Parmeswar Narain, Municipal Inspector found a glaring disobidience of the said instructions of the Municipal Council and, therefore, a challan was put up against the accused pers...
Rameshwar Prasad Vs. U.O.i. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)162
D.P. Gupta, J.1. This writ petition had been filed by Rameshwar Prasad, who was holding the post of Assistant Post Master at Ganganagar, challenging the order of Post Master General, Jaipur, dated 22.8.69, by which the petitioner was retired from service with effect from 15.11.69, Rameshwar Prasad petitioner died on 13th March, 1971, and on 5th July, 1971, his minor son Krishan Dutt, through his next friend Shri Jagdeo Sharma, submitted as application for substitution of his name as petitioner in the writ petition in place of Shri Rameshwar Prasad.2. The learned Dy.Government Advocate has opposed the application for substitution submitted by Krishan Dutt on the ground that the employment of Shri Rameshwar Prasad was a matter of status and not of contract & was enjoyed by him as a person all right and did not enjure for the benefit of his legal representative. the submission of the Dy. Government Advocate is that on account of the death of the petitioner Rameshwar Prasad, the cause of a...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramchander
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)293
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. This is State appeal challenging the judgment of the Special Judicial Railway Magistrate, Kota, dated 17th of September, 1970, acquitting respondent Ram Chander of the offence Under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Ram Chander was caught red-handed by P.W. 1 Prem Singh, P.W. 2 Naruila and P.W. 6 Laxmi Narain, members of the Railway Preventive Force from pilfering sugar from wagrn no NR 16219 which was standing in the yard of Kota Station on 25th of April, 1968. According to the statement of Prem Singh (P.W. 1), accused Ram Chander was taking out sugar with the aid of his fingers from the hole of the said wagon. He was seen pilfering the sugar from the wagon by Narulla (P.W. 2) and Laxmi Narain (P.W. 6) who were on duty and were examining the goods train in which wagon NR 16219 was attached. Prem Singh further states that he had seen one 'cheni' (chisel) and one hammer with accused Ram Chander but this part of the story is (sic) corroborated by Naruila (P.W. 2) a...
Nathulal and anr. Vs. Mool Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN(UC)242
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a defendants' second appeal.2. The plaintiff 's case was that the defendantsfhad put up two windows and fixed two 'Chhajjas' over them over-looking his 'Nohara', and further that they had constructed two water spouts, one in the ground-floor and the other in the first floor so as to discharge water from their house through them. It was prayed that the spouts, windows and ventilators be ordered to be closed, and the 'Chhajjas' be ordered to be demolished. The defendants denied the plaintiff's ownership to the 'Nohara' and further pleaded that in any case the spouts and the windows had been constructed with the consent of the plaintiff.3. The trial court found that the 'Nohara' belongs to the plaintiff and that the 'Chhajjas' on the windows had been recently constructed. As regards the spout on the ground-floor, marked 'A' in the plaint, it was found that this too had been recently constructed. With respect to the other spout on the first floor marked 'H' it was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »