Rajasthan Court March 1976 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.
Bahirumal Basdev and anr. Vs. Lalit Kishore Son of Kalyan Prasad by Ca ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN112
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is a second appeal by defendant tenant against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Kota, dated May 2, 1976, in a suit for eviction and arrears of rent.2. The dispute relates to a shop equate at Kota and fully described in paragraph No. 1 of the plaint. The plaintiff respondent, who is a practising lawyer at Kota, sought eviction of the defendant on the ground that the disputed shop was required by him bonafide and reasonably for his office. Bath the courts below decreed the sun against the defendant holding that the bonafide nod reasonable requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff under Section 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was proved. Dissatisfied with the decree pasted by the lower appellate court, the defendant has preferred this second appeal.3. On September 29, 1075, Section 14 of the Act was amended by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (...
Bhura and anr. Vs. Bahadursingh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Raj249; 1976(9)WLN44
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This is the defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment, and damages for use and occupation.2. Tersely put and shorn of unnecessary details the case set up by the plaintiffs in the plaint was that Daluram, father of appellant No. 1 and husband of appellant No. 2 took on lease the premises described in para No. 2 of the plaint, situated in Alamsahar on payment of Rs. 2/- per annum as rent, and executed the rent note Ex. 1, dated Sawan Sudi 12, S. 1989 in favour of the plaintiffs. After his death the appellants continued to remain in possession of those premises on the same terms and conditions except that the rate of rent was enhanced from Rs. 2/- per annum to Re. 1/-per month. In support of their contention the plaintiffs placed reliance on the admission Ex. 13 made by Daluram, predecessor in interest of the defendants wherein he admitted that he was the tenant of the plaintiff in the disputed premises on payment of yearly rent of Rs. 2/-. Th...
Hemsingh and anr. Vs. the Collector and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Raj187
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J. 1. These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are directed against the common order passed by the Collector, Banner on February 7, 1973 in exercise of his powers of review under Section 40-A of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts of the two cases, stated in brief, are that the Deputy Collector, Jagir, Barmer vide his order dated November 29, 1966 allotted 110 bighas of land in village Chohatan and 340 bighas of land in village Jesar to Chimansingh, father of the petitioner Hemsingh for Khudkast (petitioner in S. B. Civil Writ No. 661 of 1973). By another order dated December 5, 1966, he allotted 270 bighas and 11 biswas of land in village Chohatan, 376 bighas in village Intada and 322 bighas in village Jesar for Khudkast to Ugamsingh, Ex-Jagirdar Chohatan (petitioner in civil writ petition No. 662 of 1973).3. The grievance of the petitioners is that a ...
Hemsingh Vs. the Collector and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN125
C.M. Lodha, J.1. These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are directed against the common order passed by the Collector, Barmer on February 7, 1973 in exercise of his powers of review under Section 40A of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts of the two cases, stated to brief, are that the Deputy Collector, Jagir, Barmer vide his order dated November 29, 1986 allotted 110 bighas of land in village Chohatan aod 340 bighas of land in village Jesar to Chimansingh, father of the petitioner Hemsingh for Khudkast (petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ No. (sic) of 1973) By another order dated December 5, 1966 he allotted 270 bighas and 11 biswas, of land in village Chohatan. 375 bighas in village Intada and 32J bighas in village Jesar for Kbudkast to Udaisingh, Ex-Jagirdar Chohatan (petitioner in civil writ petition No. 662 of 1973)3. The grievance of the petitioner is that a group of ...
Shrikishan Sayardavi Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN15
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The case was fixed for orders on stay application today, but on the request of the learned Counsel for the patties the main writ petition was taken up for hearing. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. A temporary permit was granted to the respondent No. 3 on Ajmet Pisengan via Pusokar, Nand, Picholia route by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur by its order dated 24-12-1974 A revision fifed by the petitioner, who is the existing operator of the aforesaid route, before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur was dismissed. In the present writ petition challenging the grant of the aforesaid, temporary permit to the respondent No. 3, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that toe Transport Authorities did not coma to the conclusion that there was a particular temporary need within the meaning of Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act thereinafter referred to as 'The Act') & as such the grant of a temporary permit to the respondent N...
Chandrasen and anr. Vs. Murarilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Raj142
S.N. Modi, J. 1. This is defendants' second appeal against the appellate judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Sirohi, dated September 30, 1974, confirming the decree and judgment for ejectment passed by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Abu Road. 2. The dispute relates to a residential house situated at Abu Road which is fully described in paragraph No. 2 of the plaint. This house admittedly belongs to Ramanlal Manaklal, who let-out the upper storey of this house to appellant No. 1 Chandrasen on a monthly rent of Rs. 32/-. Besides the monthly rent, the tenant also agreed to pay Rs. 0.75 per month as latrine-tax. Later on, Ramanlal Manaklal sold this house to respondent Murarilal on March 27, 1971. The appellant No. 1 Chandrasen neither paid nor tendered rent after August 8. 1970 to Ramanlal Manaklal and after the sale on March 27, 1971 to the respondent Murarilal: The respondent served notice to quit terminating the tenancy with effect from August 9, 1971. Ultimately when no rent was paid by ...
Ramjidas and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ591; 1976(9)WLN51
ORDERM.L. Jain J.1. This application has been made under Section 439 Criminal P.C. by four accused persons Ramji Das s/o Chela Ram, Basantilal, Bhajansingh and Dharam Singh. I have heard arguments.2. The facts appear to be that in the town of Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar, there is a truck Union which allots loads to its members. But Jasbir Singh deceased did not agree to abide by the directions of the union in respect of transporting some cement. Some words were exchanged between Union people and Jasbir Singh towards the evening of 16-11-1975 and Jasbir Singh and party left for home. It is alleged that at about 9.15 p.m. Subhash Jain and 15 others armed with guns, knives, and lathis came to the workshop of Jasbir Singh and attacked them, Jasbir Singh and Faqir Chand died on the spot, while Roop Singh and Hukam Singh father of the deceased were severely wounded.The case was registered in the police station, Anupgarh against 18 persons but it appears that after some time, the inve...
Chittarmal Vs. Sheo NaraIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)174
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for declaration arid mandatory injunction.2. It is not necessary to narrate the facts in detail Suffice it to say that the appellant Chhitarmal and respondent No. 3 Kanhiya Lal filed a suit is the court of Munsif, Laxmangarh (District Alwar) for declaration and mandatory injunction against Sbeo Narain. One Bhagwan Sahai was also impleaded as proforma defendant. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit on 26th April, 1965. The plaintiff appellant preferred an appeal but the some was dismissed by the learned Sanior Civil Judge Alwar on 7tb April, 1967. Hence this second appeal.2. This case came up for hearing before this Court On. 15 10 1975. On that day Laxmi Narain son of defendant Sheo Narain moved an application that Sheo Narain had died about three years ago and since no legal representatives of Sbeo Narain had died about three years ago and since no legal representatives of Sheo Narain were brought on record, the appeal was...
The Jaipur Milk Supply Scheme Vs. the Judge, Labour Court and Two ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN129
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioner is a Rajasthan Government Undertaking for supply of milk to the city of Jaipur. It is alleged by the petitioner that it is under the Animal Husbandry Department of the Rajasthan Government, though this fact is denied by the non-petitioner No. 2 Manoharkumar, who is the contesting respondent in this case. The respondent No. 2 Manoharkumar was appointed as a Van Clerk on temporary basis for a period of three months vide Annecure. 'A' and his period of service was extended from time to time. He was suspended from service along with three other employees by the order dated 26.7.1969 (Annexure 'F') by the General Manager of the petitioner undertaking on account of a complaint having been received from Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur about adulteration of milk. Thereafter his services were terminated with effect from 31.10.1969 vide Annexure 'O' dated 30.9.1969. It appears that after the termination of his services, he was served with a chare-sheet on 3.11.19...
Roshan Bai Vs. Dharam Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-01-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)102
S.N. Modi, J.1. This civil miscellaneous first appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Udaipur dated 27-2-1971.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : Mst. Dakh Bai died on 20-1-67 in Udaipur. After her death, two claimants, Mst. Roshan Bai and Dharam Chand, filed two separate applications for the grant of Succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. Mr Roshan Bai claimed herself to be the nearest heir on account of her being the disputer of tile deceased. Dharam Chand set up a will alleged to have been made by the deceased in his favour. He claimed succession certificate on the basis of the will on 2.11.62. The learned Dist Judge after examining evidence came to the conclusion that the will was proved. He accordingly dismissed the application filed by Mst. Rosban Bai and accepted the application filed by Dharam Chand and granted him the succession certificate. Both these or...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›