Rajasthan Court October 1981 Judgments
Motor Owners Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Khet Pal Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Raj83
Dwarka Prasad, Acting. C.J.1. This is an appeal in a motor accident claims case. The respondent Khetpal Singh was the driver in a Government jeep No R. J. R. 151 which was coming towards Jaipur from Kota on December 4, 1965. While the Jeep had proceeded about 8 miles beyond Bundi, truck No. R. J. Z. 1884 , which was driven by Shakti Singh respondent, dashed against the jeep. As a result of the aforesaid collision, Khetpal Singh received a fracture of his right forearm, while his sons Bishwendra Pal Singh and Ranghavendra Singh, who were also travelling along with him, sustained injuries. A claim petition was filed by Khet Pal Singh and his sons before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kota, complaining that Shakti Singh was driving the truck rashly and negligently and as a result thereof the accident took place, causing injuries to Khetpal Singh and his two sons. A sum of Rs. 65,000/- was claimed by Khet Pal Singh for loss caused to him while a sum of Rs. 17,000/- each was claimed o...
Tag this Judgment!Nabu Vs. Gani and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)335
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 2 against the judgment: t and decree of the learned District Judge, Bikaner dated November 7, 19,70 whereby the appeal of the present appellant against the judgment and decree of the, learned Civil Judge, Ratangarh dated May 19, 1967 was dismissed and the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge in favour of the plaintiff-respondent Gani for possession of the disputed Guwari, for injunction and for compensation of Rs. 50/-was maintained.2. The plaintiff Gani instituted a suit for possession in, respect of the disputed1 'Guwari', alleging himself to be the owner thereof. It was averred that the disputed Gawari belonged to his grand-father Kadarkhan. Kadarkhan had no male issue. Kndarkhan's brother Hussainkhah's son Idukhan went in adoption to Kadarkhan. Kadarkhan had a daughter Goga. The plaintiff Gani is the son of Idukhan. Smt. Goga became widow in her young age, so she left her in-laws place Darasar and started living at Rajaldesar w...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Sahai and anr. Vs. Satya NaraIn and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN589
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, Act. C.J.1. As both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated November 18, 1969, they have been taken up together for hearing and are disposed of by a common judgment.2. The only question which arises in these appeals is as to whether a suit for pre-emption could not be filed because the pre-emptor failed to make the customary Talabs.3. Kalyan Bux filed a suit for pre-emption in respect of certain portions of a house property situated in the city of Jaipur on the basis that he was a co-sharer in the same house and had, therefore, a preferential right of purchase. There was some dispute between the parties as to whether the property in question was sold for a sum of Rs. 6,999/- or for a lesser amount. However, both the courts below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was a co-sharer and that the property in question was sold for a sum of Rs. 6,999/-. As such, a decree for pre-emp...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan Vs. Dr. Nihal Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)438
S.C. Agarwal, J.1 This special appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated April 22, 1981, passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 29 of 1979. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by Dr. Nihal Singh, respondent No. 1, who holds the post of Research Assistant in the University of Udaipur, against the appellant and the University of Udaipur, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the University'). In the said writlpetition, respondent No. 1 had prayed that an appropriate writ order or direction be issued directing the appellant and respondent No. 2 to give to respondent No. 1, the revised pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 with effect from 1st January, 1973 as it had been given to the other teachers of the University. In the said writ petition, respondent No. 1 has submitted that the post of Research Assistant in the University was ecquivalent to the post of Junior Lecturer and that by notification dated 2nd July, 1974, statute 47(1...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hafiz Khan Vs. Jethu Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)401
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is defendant-tenant's second appeal under Section 100, CPC against the judgment and decree dated May 2,1970 of the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur by which he set aside the judgment and decree dated November 4, 1967 of the Additional Munsif No. 1, Jodhpur City and decreed the suit for ejectment which was dismissed by the learned Additional Munsif.2. A few facts may be noticed : The plaintiff-respondeut instituted a suit for ejectment from the house which was rented out to the defendant-appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 34/-. It was stated by the plaintiff that the house in question is reasonably and bonafide required by him for use and occupation for himself and his family. It was also pleaded that the house, where he is living, belongs to his deceased brother Chhaganlal and that Smt. Kamala, the only daughter, of Chhaganlal has given him a notice to vacate it. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given to the defendant terminating h...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Admani and ors. Vs. A. Admani and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)526
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. These two appeals under section 39 of the Arbitration Act (No. XX of 1940) (here in after referred to as 'the Act') are directed against the common order dated November 9,1976 passed by the District Judge, Pratabgarh (Camp Chitorgarh) in Civil Original Suit No. 11 of 1975. As both the appeals are directed against the same order and were heard together, I consider it proper to dispose them of by a common judgment.2. Ahmed Admani, who is appellant in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 11 of 1977 and M.A. Admani who is appellant in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 194 of 1976 are real brothers. They were partners in the partnership firm M/s Mewar Bone Mills, Gosunda. The firm was dissolved by the aforesaid partners with mutual consent by Partnership Dissolution Deed Ex. A8 dated April 4, 1974. The dissolution of the aforesaid partnership took effect from April 1, 1974. Under clause 12 of Ex. A8, the matter was referred to the arbitrators. The arbitrators gave their award on June 3, 1975. T...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish and ors. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)270
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. This is an application under Section 438 Cr. P.C. for anticipatory bail. It is alleged that a case, FIR No. 169/1981, has been registered by the Bagru Police against the accused petitioners under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 452 TPC. In a case of this nature where such injuries are involved as being the offence within bailable category and then Section 452 IPC is added, this Court has generally been granting anticipatory bail. If the FIR is to be believed then this case falls in the category of cases where as a matter of practice anicipatory bail is granted. However, the learned Public Prosecutor informs that on X-ray examination Prahlad, one of the injured persons, is said to have suffered multiple fractures of bones of fronto-parietal region that therefore Section 307 IPC has already been added to category of offences mentioned in the FIR. Without expressing any opinion on the question as to whether the injuries suffered by Prahlad would bring the case within...
Tag this Judgment!Pushkarlal and ors. Vs. Laxman Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)514
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This is yet another revision in a suit for redemption which is pending in the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Udaipur since 1968. Under his order dated August 24, 1981 which has been challenged in revision, the learned District Judge has dismissed the application of the non-petitioners moved before him under Order 1 Rule 8(5) C.P.C. Laxman Singh non-petitioner No. 1 filed a suit on July 1, 1968 for redemption of a mortgage dated September 11, 1941. The mortgage was with the members of the Sunar community known as 'Samast Panch Med Sunar Udaipur.' As the number of the members of the Sunar community was large, an application under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. along with the suit was filed seeking the permission of the court to sue the six persons shown in the written statement representing the entire Sunar community. The learned court under Order 1 Rule 8. C.P.C. as is stood prior to the amendment by Act 104/76 which came into force with effect from February 1,...
Tag this Judgment!Sanwal Ram and Etc. Vs. Additional District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj139
ORDER1. A number of writ petitions have been filed challenging the validity of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (Act No. 11 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Arguments hare been heard in the above two writ petitions. The above two writ petitions raise some common questions, so I think it convenient to dispose them of by this order.2. In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 481 of 1980 filed by Sanwalram, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar by his order dated July 23, 1971 (Ex. 1) decided his ceiling case holding that he has no land in the excess of the ceiling area. The petitioner Sanwalram's case was decided under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Ceiling Law') and the proceedings were also taken against the petitioner Sanwalram under the Act and the Authorised Officer (Ceiling) Raisinghnagar by his order, dated July 11, 1975 (Exhibit 2) dropped the proceedings of ceiling ho...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Vs. Som Nath and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj77
ORDERS.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' revision under Section 115, C.P.C. directed against the order dated September 27, 1980 of the learned Civil Judge, Pali by which he dismissed the application under Order XIV, Rule 5, C. P. C. on Sept., 6, 1980 which was filed on behalf of the guardian-ad-litem of the minor defendants No. 2, 3, 7 and 8 for framing of the additional issues.2. The defendant-non-petitioners instituted a suit for redemption of mortgage and rendition of accounts on January 8, 1973. The plaint is dated Dec. 11, 1972. The suit was resisted by defendants Nos. 1 & 4 on various grounds by filing a written statement dated Jan. 10, 1974. A rejoinder was filed by the plaintiffs on Feb. 28, 1974. On behalf of minor defendants Nos. 2, 3, 7 and 8, guardian-ad-litem filed the written statement on July 15, 1973. The learned Civil Judge framed as many as 16 issues inclusive of the relief. Issue No. 13 relating to the Court fee was decided in favour of the defendants and the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›