Rajasthan Court December 1980 Judgments
Digambar JaIn Mandir Vs. Vishnu Prasad and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-23-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN655
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. This is a Civil Second appeal by the plaintiff in an eviction suit, which was decreed by the learned trial court, but the first appeal of the defendant respondents, legal representatives of the original tenant Lalita Prasad was allowed and the suit was dismissed.2. The suit property, which is described in para 8 of the plaint and is part of a house bearing Municipal No. 762, described in para 3 of the plaint, is situated in Rasta Dariba-Pan, Chowkri Ramchandraji. One Kishanlal Pandya son of Ganeshlal Pandya was the owner of the house described in para 3 of the plaint. Under a registered will dated 11.9.42, the said Kishanlal Pandya bequeathed the entire rental income of the house for the worship of Mandir Shri Vijay Ramji Pandya situated at Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Mandir), and directed his adopted son Prabhulal to recover the income and to spend it over the worship of the aforesaid 'Mandir' and one temple situated at Govindgarh. It was also ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Rao Baldeo Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1980
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)355
D.P. Gpta, C.J. 1. These two special appeals arise out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, partly allowing the writ petition filed by Rao Baldeo Singh and Ors..2. The facts which have given rise to these special appeals may be briefly stated: Rao Baldeo Singh is the Ex-Jagirdar of Sattasar in District Bikaner, whose Jagir was resumed under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on August 15, 1954. Thereafter on August 23, 1954, the Collector, Bikaner, within whose jurisdiction the area comprised in Rao Baldeo Singh's Jagir was situated, gave a notice to him directing him to hand over possession of his Jagir and all records connected therewith to the Tehsildar, Bikaner. Rao Bildeo Singh did not comply with the directions contained in the notice given by the Collector, Bikaner and filed a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed. Rao Baldeo Singh also filed a petition under Articl...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kaushliya Bai and ors. Vs. Balmukand Ramsingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)490
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. Appellants-petitioners have filed this civil misc. appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award, dated August 27, 1974 of learned Member' Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Ajmer, whereby, their claim for compensation was dismissed.2. Briefly stated the facts as alleged by the appellants were these. Deceased Kailashchandra was the husband of appellant Kaushalyabai. Appellants Kumari Manju Kumari Sarda and Kumari Urmila are daugthers of Kailashchandra and appellant Godawaribai is the mother. On 19-2-71, Kailashchandra went to Nasirabad with Ladliprasad, Inspector of Co-operative Societies. They were returning from Nasirabad to Ajmer by bus No. RDR 4991. The owners of the bus are respondents No. 1 to 4 and respondent No. 5 was the driver of the bus and respondent No. 6 the insurer. Kailashchandra boarded the bus from the front door on the left side of the driver's seat. The bus was over-crowded and he had to stand near the door...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Gopal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)572
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated 11-6-80.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition are that on 26-7-1975 Hetram, Enforcement Officer inspected the firm M/s Brijgapal Vedprakash Sri Karanpur and found the opening balance of the wheat as 172 quintals. On verification it was found that the stock of 172 quintals of wheat was not there in Godown No. 43 as declared in the licence. On physical verification the goods were found in block house No. 2 'A'. Another mistake found by the Enforcement Officer was that the firm had 517 quintals of wheat in stock on 30-5-1975, 31-5-75 and 2-6-1975 while the limit to keep the stock was 500 quintals only and therefore, the firm had kept the stock beyond the prescribed limit. Thus it was found that the condition No. 3 of the licence to keep the goods in the declared Godown was not complied with and therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vimla Devi Vs. Smt. Maya Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj211; 1980()WLN608
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal under Section 47(b) of the Guardians and Wards Act (No. VIII of 1890) (for short 'the Act' hereafter) is directed against the order datedOctober 4, 1978 of the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, by which, he directed return of the application under Sections 10 and 25 of the Act to the appellant, which was filed on January 3, 1975.2. The case of the appellant is that she moved an application under Sections 10 and 25 of the Act on January 3, 1975 before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara that she may be appointed guardian of the person and property of Sushree Meena, who is the minor daughter of her son late Sushil Kumar and that she may be returned to her custody from Smt. Maya Devi (respondent No. 1). It has been stated that Shri Sushil Kumar and Smt. Maya Devi were married on July 15, 1972. Out of this wedlock, Sushree Meena was born on April 20, 1973. It is said that when Sushree Meena was only one month old, Smt. Mayadevi left her matrimonial home an...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwari Vs. Bhanwaria and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)476
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. This Civil Mic. appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated April 21,1979 of learned District Judge, Udaipur, whereby the petition for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce of the appellant was dismissed.2. The main ground for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce taken in the petition was that respondent No. 1 Bhanwaria was living in adultery. It is alleged that the appellant was married with respondent No. 1 according the Hindu rites in the year 1970. The appellant went to house of the respondent no. 1 for the first occasion in the year 1975, for a few days. She again visited the house of respondents three moths before the date of petition 9-3-76. But after a few days, the respondents turned her out from his house after giving her a beating. Respondent no. 1 has married Bhagudi and they were living as husband and wife. The date of the alleged marriage or the 'nata' was mentioned as 6-3-76. Respondent no. 1 in his written re...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Karanjiya Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)534
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in relation to an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 20th November, 1980, in criminal case No. 1/80 State v. R.K. Karanjiya and Ors..2. The prosecution case is that a news was published in Hindi News Paper Blitz dated 18-8-1979 which was defamatory to Mr. Mitha Lal Mehta, IAS, Government of Rajasthan. The Public Prosecutor filed a complaint under Section 500 and 501, IPC in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur against Shri R.K. Karanjiya, Nand Kishore Notiyal and Hirendra Mukarjee. Petitioner Shri R.K. Karanjiya put in his appearance through Counsel on 30th September, 1980, though summons were not served on him till then. The case was adjourned to 20th November, 1980. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted an application for exempting the petitioner from personal attendance under Section 205, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Sessions Judge, passe...
Tag this Judgment!Girraj Prasad Vs. the Excise Commissioner and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)580
G.M. Lodha, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated December 4, 1980 (Annexure III), by which, he has been called upon to deposit Rs. 7085.06. This amount, as per the notice is alleged to be due on account of the excise revenue in relation to his licence of 1975 76 for country-liquor of shop Bamanwas.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no amount is due in the petitioner, and the demand is without authority of law. In addition to it, it was argued that coercive proceedings of attachment and sale have been taken by the Excise Authority, and therefore, he is entitled to claim protection of his property by getting a writ issued from this court under under Article 226 of the constitution.3. In support of his contention, Mr. Dhankar has placed reliance on AIR 1980 Bom 9, and specially on para 14 of it.4. The notice expressly mentions that the demand is in relation to 1975-76 liquor licence of Bamnwas. The petitioner received the notice as ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bhagwati Vs. Anandaram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)598
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22-12-1979 of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, whereby the petition for divorce of the appellant was dismissed. It was alleged in the petition that the appellant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place in the year 1973 according to the Hindu rites at Jodhpur. After the marriage appellant went to the house of the in-laws and the marriage was duly consummated. After two days the appellant returned to her parents house. Two months thereafter the father of the appellant died. The respondent did not pay a condolence visit. The respondent does not want to keep the appellant with him and since then has not brought her to his house. The father of the respondent became angry because adequate dowry was not paid. The respondent and his father now want to give the appellant 'nata' to someone else or to sell her. This conduct of the respondent was stated to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Sare Mal Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)575
M.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of reversion (Exhibit 8) dated December 23,1978 passed by the Collector (Land Records) Sirohi, the order dated June 4, 1974 (Exhibit 9) passed by the Board of Revenue in appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority and the order of the State Government (Exhibit 10), dated October 19, 1973 passed on review application of the petitioner.2. The petitioner was appointed as Inspector (Land records) by the order of the Commissioner, Jodhpur No. 8712 dated April 5, 1961, after selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and after unnergoing Kanugo Training. The petitioner was thereafter confirmed on the post of Land Records Inspector by the order of the Collector, Jalore, No. L.R. 1718 dated April 28, 1964. The petitioner was then transferred to the office of Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Sirohi, by the order of the Collector, Sirohi, dated April 22, 1965. When the petitioner was working as a Sales Officer...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »