Rajasthan Court May 1975 Judgments
Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1975
Reported in: 1975(8)WLN267
Alagiriswami, J.1. These appeals raise the question of the validity of certain rules made under the Rajasthan colonisation Act, 1954. The facts necessary for the decision of this case are as fallow:2. Jaila Singh, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1704 of 1974, was allotted 50 bighas of uncommand land in the years 1956-57 and 1957-58 in the Ganganagar District of the Rajasthan State. The area in which the land is situate was declared a colony Area in which the land is situate was declared a coloneyovea of the Rajasthan Caaal project under the Act in 1960. In 1967 the Rajasthan Colonisation (Rajasthan Canal Project Government Land Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1967 were promulgated and applications were invited for allotment of land under those rules. Jaila Singh's application for allotment was disposed of on 27-12-1969 by allotting 14 bighas were and 14 biswas of land on permanent basis. These 1967 rules were the subject matter of certain writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court whi...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Manphool
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1975
Reported in: 1975(8)WLN281
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The appellant convict Manphool has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge Churu under Section 302, IPC for causing the murders of Smt. Shanti and Mst. Kamla and also under Section 307, IPC for attempting to murder PW. 1 Rameshwar. For the offence under Section 302, IPC be has been sentenced to death and the offence under Section 307 IPC he has been sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for one week. It may be stated, here, that one Gopal was also tried along with the appellant for abetting the offence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. He was charged under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 109, IPC But he was given benefit of doubt and consequently acquitted.2. Aggrieved by his convictions and sentences Manphool filed appeal to this Court which has been registered as D.B Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1975. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has made reference to this...
Tag this Judgment!Madanlal Vs. Panna Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1975
Reported in: 1975WLN(UC)196
J.P. Jain, J.1. Madan Lal defendant has challenged the appellate decree paseed by the Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu, Camp Sikar dated 20.10.73 by which the suit of the respondents No. 1 and 2 for eviction and arreais of rent has been decreed.2. Pannalal and Nathumal own the suit shop in the town of Fatehpur District Sikar. In the suit it was claimed by them that the suit shop was rented out to Satya Narayan defendant No. 1 at the monthly rent of Rs. 60/- for a period of 9 months and a rent note was executed on 13-5-66. According to the plaintiffs the rent was payable in accordance with English Calendar month starting from 13-5-66.3. The rent was not paid by the defendant Satya Narayan and instead he sub-let the shop to Madan Lal defendant, who is running a Barber's business in the suit shop. The plaintiffs determined the tenancy of Satya Narayan by serving notices on bothh Satya Narayan and Madan Lal. On their having failed to surrender the possession of the suit shop, the present suit out of...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpatraj Vs. Smt. Usha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1975
Reported in: 1975WLN(UC)193
J.P. Jain, J.1. The judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jodhpur, dated 13-3-74 has given rise to this appeal by Ganpat Raj whose petition for annulling the marriage with the respondent has been dismissed.2. The appellant Ganpat Raj filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 22.8.73, against. Smt. Usha with the allegation that the parties were married at Jodbpur on 3-7-72. After the marriage the respondent came to the petitioner's home only twice and that too under the pressure of her father. But she did not allow the marriage to be consumated According to the petitioner there could be no consumation of the marriage until the date of the petition. He accordingly prayed for the annulment of the marriage on the ground that Smt. Usha was impotent on the date of the marriage and continued to be so until the date of the petition. Smt. Usha did not put in appearance respite of notice. The case proceeded exparte. In support of his contention Ganpat Raj examined himse...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›