Rajasthan Court July 1975 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.
Smt. Teeja Devi Vs. Noratmal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Raj95; 1975()WLN332
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. This is defendant's first appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Churu dated 21st March, 1972 in a suit for pre-emption.2. Respondent Mst. Teeja Devi purchased 1/3rd portion of a house for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- from Shri Laxmipat defendant No. 2. The plaintiff who claimed himself to be a co-sharer, filed a suit for a decree for pre-emption alleging that he had no knowledge of the sale and that the sale was made by Laxmipat without giving any notice to him under the provisions of the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966. He also averred that the property was actually sold for Rs. 8,000/- but a fictitious figure of Rupees 10,000/- was mentioned in the sale-deed and he, therefore, prayed that the decree of preemption in respect of 1/3rd portion of the house belonging to Laxmipat, details whereof were given in para 1 of the plaint, be passed in his favour.3. The suit was contested by the defendant-vendee who came out with a pl...
Smt. Prem Kumari Vs. Panchayat Samiti
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-1975
Reported in: 1975WLN(UC)241
D.P. Gupta, J.1. Those two writ petitions arise in similar circumstances and raise common questions and are, therefore, disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioners in both these writ petitions were selected for the posts of Teachers in the Panchyat Samiti, Osiyan by the Rajasthan Pancbayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Service Selection Commission (hereinafter called 'the Commission'). In consequence of their aforesaid selection, both the petitioners were temporarily appointed as Teachers in the Panchayat Samiti, Osiyan a for period of two years by the order dated April 1, 1964 It appears that the temporary appointments of the petitioners in the aforesaid Pahchayat Samiti were extended from time to time However, by an order issued by the Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti, Osiyan dated March 13, 1969 petitioner Prem Kumari was placed under suspension on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were being under taken against her A similar order of suspension was issued by the Vika...
Mst. Surgyani and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and 4 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-1975
Reported in: 1975WLN(UC)248
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. The legal representatives of deceased Kanmal defendant have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur on 8th February, 1972 decreeing the suit of the Union of India declaring the disputed property to be that of the railways.2. The facts giving rise to this suit are in a nut-shell as follows: A plot of land measuring 244 Sq. gaj. within the railway boundaries near Sainik Piao on Kutchery road in the town of Jodhpur was purchased by Banshidhar defendant and a Patta of that plot was issued by the Patta Committee to Shri Binshidhar on 31-10 1955. Binshidair than transferred this plot of land by executing a sale-deed on 17-1-1958 in favour of Shri Hardutt Sarswat who in his turn further sold the said plot of land to Shri Kanmal Bhati by a registered sale-deed dated 23-7-1958 Shri Kanmal started making constructions on this plot This was protested by the railway authorities. It transpires that the Railways served...
Sujanmal Vs. Radhey Shyam Agarwal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Raj98; 1975()WLN357
J.P. Jain, J.1. Sujanmal, one of the plaintiffs, has challenged the appellate decree by which the plaintiffs' suit for damages for breach of contract for Rupees 1371.25 against the first and second respondents, has been dismissed.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Manmal (third respondent) and his son Sujanmal (appellant) as the proprietors of the Hindu undivided family firm Messrs. Dhoolchand Manmal, Chhoti Sadri, instituted a suit in the Court of Munsif, Chhoti Sadri, for the recovery of Rs. 1371.25 as damages for breach of contract against Radhey Shyam and his father Jainarayan (first and second respondents) as proprietors of the Hindu undivided family firm Messrs. Jainarayan Radhey Shyam, Nee-much Cant (M. P.) The case, as disclosed in the plaint, is that on 27-12-63 Radhey Shyam agreed to supply 200 tins of Rasada Vanaspati at the rate of Rs. 44 per tin (16.5001 to the plaintiffs' firm F.O.R. Chhoti Sadri. This agreement was in writing and signed by Radhey Shyam in favour ...
Sajan Son of Jhamandas Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-1975
Reported in: 1975(8)WLN536
C.M. Lodha, J.1. On the night of April 16 1970 when PW2 Bhagwati Kishore was sitting with his wife in privacy at about 10.45 p.m. in a room of his house abutting on the public street in the city of Kota, there appeared a shadow of a man on the curtain of the window giving an impression to the couple that some-body was improperly invading their privacy. Cans quently Bhagwati Kishore challenged the person to which an offensive reply came from the intruder. This intruder is alleged to be the accused. The accused challenged PW2 Bhagwati Kishore to come out. Meanwhile Bhagwati Kishore's father Ramkrishnu deceased happend to corns there and on a verbal altercation between him and the accused, the accused struck a blow with a knife at the chest of Ramkrishana who fell down badly injured and cried out that the accused Sajan had struck him. Bhagwati Kishore (sic) after the accused but the latter threatened to kill him also and so Bhagwati Kishore give up the chase and the accused ran away. Bhag...
Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corp. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-1975
Reported in: 1975WLN(UC)261
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. This appeal of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board raises a small question of law whether the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) is entitled to recover the entire amount of compensation which the Corporation is paying in monthly instilments to the wife of Shri K.H. Muniswami who was an employee of the appellant at the time when the fatal accident took place while Shri Muniswami was working on the electricity line in the course of his employment with the appellant.2. Shri K.H. Muniswami was a holder of insurance policy No. 15 312588 under the Employees State Insurance Scheme. Shri Muniswami was in the employment of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and on the day when he met with a fatal accident, that is on 6-11-66 he was working on the 33 K.V. Line Jumper of R.A.P.P. to change the phase sequence. While discharging his duties under his employment be met with the accident resulting in his instantaneous death. Therea...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Girvar Dayal Dave
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-1975
Reported in: 1975(8)WLN339
Kan Singh, J.1. This is an appeal by the State brought against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Tonk dated 26/3/1970 acquitting the accused respondents of an offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and under Sections 161, 165, 165A, 420. 419, 120B. 117, 114 and 218, IPC.2. Accused Girvar Dayal was, at the relevant time, a Sub-Inspector of Police, and posted at Police Station, Uniara. On 21st February, 1966, the accused Girvar Dayal Dave accompanied with others went to village Balithal to the house of PW/6 Sukhdev Sukhdev was said to the have held a feast for 500 to 700 persons in contravention of law. The accused had earlier entered into a conspiracy to exploit this for extracting illegal gratification from Sukhdev. They succeeded in extracting an amount of Rs. 500/ from Sukhdey Accused Umrao Mai was acquitted. He posed himself as a Superintendent of Police. The other accused were constables. Girvar Dayal Dave was offered a br...
Hari Mohan Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-1975
Reported in: 1975WLN(UC)252
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Survey) by the Director of Mines and Geology, Rajasthan vide order dated May 5, 1970 in a temporary capacity. The services of the petitioner were extended upto February 28, 1971 by the order of the State Government dated August 26, 1970. He was re-appointed as Assistant Mining Engineer in a temporary capacity by the order of the State Government dated February 22, 1971 for a period of six months or till a candidate duly selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (here in after referred to as 'the Commission') took over charge of the post, whichever was earlier.2. The Commission in the mean time invited applications for appointment to the posts of Assistant Mining Engineer. The case of the petitioner is that only two members of the Commission along with two experts, besides a departmental representative, interviewed the candidates for the posts of Assistant Mining Engineer and selected respondents Nos. 3 to 3 ...
Banwari Lal and ors. Vs. Bhagwati Prasad and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-1975
Reported in: 1975WLN(UC)257
P.N. Shinghal, C.J.1. This appeal by the defendants is directed against the order of learned Additional District Judge, Sikar, dated November 13, 1972, restraining them from entering upon the disputed school building and using its library, furniture, record and all other properties, and from doing any act, directly or indirectly, so as to interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs-respondents An order has also been made appointing Mr. Manmath Kumar Misra, Advocate, Sikar, as the receiver of the disputed school building along with its assets, with authority, to take possession of the school building and properties lying therein from the possession of the receiver appointed by the Bombay City Civil Court, and to make an inventory of all the furniture, books, record, implements and other accessories, and to submit a compliance report, along with the list of properties, to the trial court, within a period of two months. A cross-objection has been filed against that order by the plaintiffs...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›