Rajasthan Court January 1979 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.
Deva Ram Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN1
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This revisional application by defendant No. 3 Deva Ram is directed against the order of the Additional Civil Judge. Jodhpur dated 24-1-1977 by which he decided issue No. 6 in favour of the plaintiff Jas Raj (non-petitioner No. 3) and against the defendants.2. Defendant No. 1 State of Rajasthan is non-petitioner No. 1 and defendant No. 2 Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, is non-petitioner No. 2 in this revision.3. A few facts necessary for the disposal of this revision may briefly be noticed : plaintiff Jasaram instituted a suits in the court of Munsif City, Jodhpur against the defendant on July 28, 1971 for declaration and perpetual injunction.4. The suit was transferred from the Court of Munsif City to the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur.5. The case of the plaintiff is that he submitted applications for grant of rent-com-royalty lease in respect of allotment of quarry No. 377 situate in Kali Beri Area. Jodhpur in the office of the defendant No. 2 on December 27,...
Shanker Lal Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)8
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. Shankerlal, the petitioner in this writ petition, and one Sugnaram were neighbours in village Shivbari. In between the house of the petitioner and the house of Sugnaram, there is public land over which the petitioner claims a right of way for the purpose of going to his house. The petitioner had filed a Civil Suit for declaration and injunction in the court of Munsif, Bikaner, against Sugnaram and in the said suit, a decree was passed by the Munif, Bikaner on 29th July, 1969 in favour of the petitioner whereby it was declared that the open land aforesaid is a public way and that the petitioner has a right to use the said way and Sugnaram was restrained from interfering with the petitioner's right over the said land: On 9th August, 1969, Sugnaram applied before the Gram Panchayat, Shivbari, for grant of Patta and the Gram Panchayat by its resolution dated 28th July, 1973 decided to grant a patta to Sugnaram for the land of his house including the open land over which ...
Mohammed Ishaq Vs. Smt. Lachhi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)27
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 14th December, 1977 passed by the Munsif City, Jodhpur whereby the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner in case No. C.O 102/77 was dismissed by the Munsif City, Jodhpur. The suit aforesaid has been filed by the petitioner for the eviction of the respondent on the ground that the respondent had committed default in the payment of rent In her written statement filed in the said suit, the respondent has denied that she is a tenant of the petitioner and has stated that the premises in question were taken on rent by her from Shri Noor Mohammed After the 61ing of the aforesaid written statement, the petitioner moved an application for amendment of the plaint so as to add a ground that respondent, having denied that relationship of the landlord and tenant, cannot take the benefit o' the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Eviction & Con...
Raju Alias Rajendra Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-01-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN144
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. This revision is preferred against the order dated 21.8.1974 of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, dismissing the petitioner's application for revoking the order of taking cognizance dated 16.7.1973, against him under Section 304A IPC.2. The facts brifly stated are these : that in a case under Section 304A, IPC the police presented a final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner. The learned Magistrate dis-agreeing with the opinion of the SHO took cognizance of the offence under Section 304A, IPC, against the accused petitioner, on 16.7.1963 who, thereafter, presented an application that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the new code) and therefore, the order should be revoked The learned Magistrate rejected this application of the accused petiiior.fr while holding that even under the new Code, he has the power rand jurisdiction to take cognizance of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›