Rajasthan Court July 1975 Judgments
Girdharsingh and anr. Vs. Gokul and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Raj10; 1975()WLN337
S.N. Modi, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs respondents for injunction restraining the defendants-appellants from interfering with the right of the plaintiffs to irrigate their fields bearing khasra Nos. 390, 390/1, 391/2, 392/1, 392/2 and 407 situate at village Dantri from the well bearing khasra No. 389. 2. The plaintiffs' case is that they have been irrigating their fields with the water drawn from the well bearing khasra No. 389 for more than 100 years as of right and without interruption. It is not in dispute that the said well is owned by the defendants. Formerly too, it was owned by the defendants and their ancestors in the capacity of their being Jagirdars of village Dantri. The defence of the defendants is that the irrigation of the plaintiffs' fields from the said well was permissive and in lieu of certain payment made by the plaintiffs. Both the courts below on consideration of the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that th...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Raj217; 1975()WLN386
ORDERD.P. Gupta, J.1. The question which arises in this writ petition at the outset is as to whether the grounds that the petitioner desires to urge could be allowed to be raised in view of the order issued by the President of India suspending the rights of all persons to move any Court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, after the proclamation of emergency.2. Learned counsel tor the petitioner. Mr. Calla, urged that although the rights conferred by Article 14 cannot be enforced by this Court in view of the Presidential declaration, yet the rights conferred by Article 16 of the Constitution in matters relating to employment and appointment to any office under the State could still be invoked, as the order issued by the President does not affect the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution,3. Mr. Mridul, appearing as an in-tervenor supported the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that the prov...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoor Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1975
Reported in: 1975(8)WLN706
C.M. Lodha, J.1. These are two connected matters arising out of the judgment dated 19th May, 1971 by the Sessions Judge, Bikaner, who has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under: Convicted and Sentenced to1. Bhoor Singh i) Under Section 302 I.P.C. for the murder of Panneysingh Life imprisonment ii) Under Section 302 I.P.C. for the murder of Bhanwersingh Life imprisonment iii) Under Section 323/34 I.P.C. for causing simple hurt to Pepsingh One year's RI and fine of Rs. 50/- in de- fault 2 months' further RI2. Naryan Singh i) Under Section 302 I.P.C. for the murder or Panneysingh Life imprisonment ii) Under Section 302/34 I.P.C. for the murder of Bhanwarsingh Life imprisonment iii) Under Section 323/34 I.P.C. for causing simple hurt to Pepsingh One year's RI and fine of Rs. 50/- in de- fault 2 month's fur- ther RI3. Pratap Singh i) Under Section 302 I.P.C. for the murder of Bhanwarsingh Life imprisonment ii) Under Section 302/34 I.P.C. for the murder of Panneysingh Life ...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Ram Vs. Rajaldass
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1975
Reported in: 1975WLN(UC)274
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kota, on 31st of January, 1973 in a suit for malicious prosecution filed by Rajaldas and four others.2. The facts giving rise to this suit are in a nutshell, as follows, Sudama son of Morajmal was implicated in a serious crime before the criminal court at Kota for having abducted a minor girl of plaintiff No. 2 Motumal. It is alleged that the other plaintiffs were taking keen interest in the prosecution of Sudama. According to the plaintiff, Laxman, who is the holder of the power of attorney on behalf of the defendant-appellant Anandram, had two relations Bhagchand and Jeewatram at Morvi in Saurashtra. Sudama's father Morajmal persuaded Laxman to see through the agency of his relations that a criminal case may be filed against the plaintiffs in the court at Morvi so that under that pressure they may come to terms and compromise the criminal matter pending in the court at K...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kishore and anr. Vs. Prabhu NaraIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Raj20; 1975()WLN814
J.P. Jain, J. 1. Civil Suit No. 11 of 1959 filed by Prabhu Narain respondent No. 1 has been decreed by the Civil Judge. Jaipur City, and upheld by the Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, (Civil Appeal No. 48/1970). The first and the second defendants have come in second appeal in this court.2. On 3-1-59 Prabhu Narain instituted the suit under appeal in the court of Civil Judge, Jaipur City, against Nand Kishore. his father Radha Vallabh and four others who are tenants in the suit property. The suit property is a haveli facing North situate in Surajpole Bazar, Chowkari Topkhana Hazuri. Jaipur. This house originally belonged to one Har Bux who died on 23-9-1949. One Govind Nara-in obtained a decree against Prabhu Narain as legal representative of Har Bux. He got the suit haveli attached in that decree. A claim was put up by Nand Kishore, who was at that time minor, through his father, Radha Vallabh under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C. It was claimed that the suit property was i...
Tag this Judgment!Nandlal and ors. Vs. Kesarlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Raj226; 1975()WLN613
S.N. Modi, J. 1. This second appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Bhilwara, dated 24-8-1966 whereby he accepted the appeal of the defendant-respondent Kesarlal and reversed the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Shahpura dated 26-2-1965. 2. The relevant facts which are no longer in dispute may briefly be stated as follows: The parties to the appeal consist of 2 appellants and nine respondents. All of them are descendants of a common ancestor Radhakishen. The Former Mewar State in ancient times appointed Radhakishen and one Sitaram as shebaits of the temples of Chaturbhujji alias Charbhujaji and Mahadeoji Manaraj situated at village Dhod, The Former Mewar State also allotted certain agricultural lands to these deities and it is common ground between the parties that those lands were divided in equal shares by Radhakishen and Sitaram. The Sewapuja of the deities was performed by pala system in alternate months that is, sewapuja ...
Tag this Judgment!SatyanaraIn Vs. Bajranglal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Raj211
ORDERM.L. Joshi, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Munsif Bhilwara dated 16th of January, 1975, whereby he refused to issue commission for the examination of the three witnesses residing 200 miles away from the court house and further refused to issue process to the witnesses living within the limits of 200 miles from the court premises and thus closing the evidence of the defendant. 2. The plaintiff commenced an action for eviction of a shop and arrears of rent against the defendant-revision-petitioner alleging that the defendant was the tenant of one Smt. Sharda Devi who sold her right, interest in the said property in favour of the plaintiff by a registered sale-deed which fact was notified by her to the defendant by a written notice. The plaintiff claimed that he required the suit premises for carrying the business as he and his brother were carrying the business in a rented shop. 3. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's claim on various ...
Tag this Judgment!Tharumal Vs. Jodh Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1975
Reported in: 1975WLN(UC)286
J.P. Jain, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against whom respondent's suit for eviction, from the suit shop, arrears of rent and mesne profits has been decreed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Churu, and affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Churu in appeal.2. There is a shop in the town of Churu and which is partitioned by tin-sheets. The eastern portion of the said shop has been on rent with defendant Tharumal under rent note Ex. 2 with effect from 9-12-64 on a monthly rent of Re. 50/-. The defendant does his cloth business on that shop. The western portion of the shop has been in the occupation of the landlord Jodhraj on the date of the suit and his son Hukmi Chand is running a tea shop since 16th April, 1968. Jodhraj respondent-appellant by his notice dated 7-10-1968 (Ex. 13) and called upon the tenant to surrender vacant possession of the shop as he required the same reasonably and bonafide for his son Hukmi Chand, because the present shop for running the t...
Tag this Judgment!Chhagan Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ671; 1975()WLN479
ORDERKudal, J.1. This is an appeal by Chhagan from Jail who has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara under Section 302, I. P.C. on 18-7-1970, and sentenced to imprisonment for life, and a fine of Rs. 200/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months more,2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Smt. Jawari, mother of the accused Chhagan, used to live with him in village Loonavada, which is at a distance of about 7 miles from the Police Station, Kausalgarh. Mst. Hudi, wife of the accused, also resided with them along with her two minor children. On 1-3-1970, Mst. Hudi raised an alarm that Smt. Jawari is dead. On hearing the alarm, Metah son of Jetha Bheel, came to the house of the accused, and saw that Mst, Jawari was lying dead in the 'angan' of the house. It is alleged that Chhagan told Metah that his mother was a witch, and that he had killed her, as he was not keeping well for the last one month. Metah and Chh...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish Chandra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1975
Reported in: 1975WLN(UC)284
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. The first appeal is filed by the State and is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Ajmer dated 6th January, 1973.2. The suit in which the impugned judgment was passed by the learned Additional District Judge is an off-shoot of the previous litigation between the plaintiff and the State Government regarding the order of termination of the plaintiff's service. In that suit the learned Munsif, Ajmer declared by his judgment dated 23rd September, 1970 that the order of termination of the plaintiff's service dated 4th March, 1966 was illegal and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to draw the salary of his post from 1st January, 1968 on ward In consequence of that decree the plaintiff filed a suit for Rs. 10,314/- on 10th July, 1971 for the recovery of the arrears of his salary and other emoluments from 1st January. 1968 to 30th June, 1971. The suit was contested by the State but the learned Judge decreed the suit for Rs. 8597.62 which...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »