Rajasthan Court November 1978 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.
Jagdish NaraIn Etc. Vs. Dwarka Das and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Raj62; 1978(11)WLN670
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. These three revisions are disposed of by a common order, as the landlords in all the three cases are the same and the three revisions have been filed by three different tenants, but a common order has been passed by the learned trial Court in all the three cases and common question of law is involved in these cases. The plaintiff-non-petitioners filed a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises, During the pendency of the suit, Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, was amended by Amending Ordinance No. 26 of 1975 which was later on replaced by Act No. 14 of 1976. A new Section 14 was introduced in the Amending Act which reads as under:'Section 14 -- Restriction on eviction 5 (1) -- No decree for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (b) of Sub-section 13 shall be passed unless the court is satisfied, after taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, that it is...
Hanuman Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)404
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This revision petition his been filed by the plaintiff Hanuman Singh for setting aside the orders dated 27th May, 1977 and 1st September, 1977 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2,Jodhpur in civil suit No. 42/74. By order dated 27th May, 1977 the Additional District Judge dismissed the said suit for default and by order dated 1st September, 1977 he dismissed the application filed by the petitioner Under Section 151 CPC for restoration of the said suit.2. The suit referred to above was filed by the petitioner against the respondents on March 27, 1974. In the said suit written statement was filed on 16th August, 1975 and issues were framed on 20th September, 1976. On that date i.e. 20th September, 1976 the suit was adjourned to November 4, 1976 for recording the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner. On November 4, 1976 the suit was adjourned to January 8, 1977 on account of inability of the counsel for the defendant-respondent to appear in the Court. As Januar...
Tilak Raj Kapoor Vs. Smt. Asha Kapoor
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Raj128
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal under Section 47(b) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (No. VIII of 1890) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated September 18, 1978 by which she dismissed his application under Section 25 of the Act. It may be stated here that the learned counsel for the father (applicant before the District Judge) stated before her that it is not necessary to return the application for presentation to the proper court as another application will be submitted in the court at Bharatpur if the father-applicant so likes. The appellant submitted an application under Section 25 of the Act against the respondent for return of the minor son of the parties who had completed seven years in March 1978, to his custody. In para 4 of the application, it was mentioned that the minor, at the time of its presentation, was living with his mother at Bharatpur. It was also admitted by the learned counsel for the ...
Shiv Shankar Vs. Civil Judge
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)376
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order (Annexure 4) of the learned Civil Judge, Pratabgarh dated April 6, 1973, passed in Civil Original Suit No. 84 of 1968 in which he held the document dated July 30, 1968 alleged to have been executed by non-petitioner No. 2 in favour of the petitioner as a 'conveyance' chargeable to stamp duty and penalty and for declaring that the document (Annexure 1) dated July 30, 1968, oh which the petitioner had instituted the suit for specific performance, is an agreement to sell and not a complete sale deed.2. The petitioner, who is a plaintiff, instituted a suit for specific performance on the basis of document Annexure 1 dated July 30, 1968, alleged to have been executed by the defendant. The defendant raised an objection that since it is a saler-deed, it requires registration and proper stamp. The learned Civil Judge framed issue No. 1 which reads as under:Whether the aferesai...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Regional Transport Auth ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Raj120
Sidhu, J. 1. These two appeals from the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court raise a common question as to the true meaning of the words 'till the validity of the aforesaid permits' appearing in the scheme of nationalisation of passenger road transport services on the Jaipur-Bharatpur route and of similar words appearing in the similar scheme as to the Jaipur-Alwar route, both duly approved and published in accordance with the provisions of Section 68-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, the Act), in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary dated, December 14, 1960. The expression 'approved scheme' will hereafter be used as having reference to either or both of these schemes.2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to state a few facts here. The approved schemes which admittedly carry the force of law and which are pari materia lay down, inter alia, that:--(1) The State Road Transport Service shall commence to operate from the 28th January, 1961, or therea...
Shyam Lal Vs. Sohan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Raj205
ORDERS.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This revision by the plaintiff-petitioner is directed againstthe order of Munsif-City, Jodhpur, dated May 3, 1974 by which he decided issue No. 5 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant and directed him to payad valorem Court-fee on the market value of the house in dispute. 2. The plaintiff and defendant are father and son respectively. The plaintiff instituted a suit in the Court of Munsif City, Jodhpur on Aug. 28, 1969 stating that he owns a house near Hanu-man-ji-ki-Bhakri, Jodhpur, described in para 1 of the plaint, that the defendant, with his family, started living in that house with his, permission as licensee, that when the relations between the parties became strained, he served a notice dated Aug. 22, 1967 through his counsel, asking the defendant, to vacate the house within 15 days and that that notice was delivered to him on Aug. 24, 1967. He further stated that after the expiry of 15 days, the licence stood revoked. It was also state...
Suraj Mal Vs. Suraj Bhan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)391
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated August 1, 1978 of the learned District judge, Churu, by, which he accepted in part of appeal of the petitioner who was opposite party No. 1 before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (No. IV of 1936)(for short the Act,).2. A few facts deserve recall there. The non-petitioner No. 1 (applicant before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act) claimed a sum of Rs. 10, 680/- being the amount of wages for the period from April 1, 1974 to September 30, 1974 at the rate of Rs. 360/- per month and over time for the same period at the rate of four hours a day. In this revision, the petitioner will be referred to as opposite party No. 1 and the non petitioner will be referred to as the applicant. The application under Section 15(2) of the Act was submitted on November 6, 1975 before the Authority appointed under the Act ('the Authority' hereafter). It was mentioned that the opposite-party No. 1 is the Managi...
Deva and ors. Vs. Godar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)354
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision against the order of the learned District Judge, Udaipur dated September 14, 1978 by which he vacated the order of temporary injunction dated August 28, 1978 passed by the learned Munsiff, Kanor and arises out of an application filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners under Order XXXIX Rule 1 read with Section 151, C.P.C.2. The plaintiffs-petitioners instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants-non-petitioners in the court of Munsiff, Kanor alleging that they have been using the disputed land marked MN and the entrance marked XY shown in the plan appended to the plaint for going to their fields bearing Khasras Nos. 363 and 361. It was also mentioned that for cultivation and for bringing the harvest & crop by ballock carts, the way marked MN has been continuously used by them and that is the only way for going to the plaintiffs' fields It was prayed in the plaint that the defendants maybe restrained by m...
Jagannath Singh Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)350
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. Shri Jagannath Singh, the petitioner in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 & 226 of the Constitution, was the Jagirdar of Thikana Malas in the former State of Mewar. A tank known as 'Arjun Sagar' had been constructed by Shri Arjun Singh in village Malas, Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara. The petitioner's grand father, Shri Khunaan Singh reconstructed the said tank so as to enable it to meet the requirements of irrigation of jagirs land and for that purpose he was advanced a loan, on Rs. 13.000/- by the former State of Mewar in 1936 under a written deed dated Vikram Samwat year 1992 Kati Bid 11. The said loan carried interest 6% per annum. Shri Khumansingh died in 1940 and shortly thereafter his son, Shri Ratansingh, the father of the petitioner, also died leaving behind the petitioner. As the petitioner was put under the Management of the Court of Wards and was released from the administration of the Court of Wards in the year 1954. During the period, the Ma...
Deepchand and Sons Vs. Mohan Das and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Raj35
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. The short question of law that arises in this revision application is as to whether the suit filed by the tenant for fixation of standard rent was maintainable or not? The facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition may be briefly stated: There was a big shop belonging to the plaintiff applicant situated in the city of Kota. In Feb. 1970, the shop was vacated by the erstwhile tenant thereof and thereafter the landlord constructed partition walls dividing the one big shop into four smaller shops and fixed separate doors on each one of these four shops. The plaintiff opposite party took one of these four shops on rent from the plaintiff landlord in April 1970, on a monthly rent of Rs. 175, Sometime after taking one such shop on rent, the tenant filed a suit for fixation of standard rent in the Court of Additional Munsif, alleging that the bigger shop, which now consisted of four separate shops, was earlier rented out to Hemandas Liladhar on a monthly ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »