Rajasthan Court November 1981 Judgments
Nanda @ Chhittar Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN437
M.B. Sharma, J.1. On trial by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara the accused-appellant Nanda @ Chhittar has been convicted under Section 307 of the I.P.C. The judgment convicting the accused, was pronounced on October 24, 1979 but on the application of the accused that he wants to lead evidance on the question of sentence, the case was adjourned to October 29, 1979. The accused did not lead any evidence and before a sentence could be passed preferred on appeal in this Court against his conviction under Section 307 of the I.P.C.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is as to whether under Section 374 Cr. PC (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') an appeal lies to this Court only against finding of guilt or an appeal will only lie when it is followed by some consequential order i.e. sentence or an order under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act) or under Section 360 Cr. P.C. In other words, whether the term 'convicted' or 'co...
Tag this Judgment!Khangaram and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)413
M.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioners seek to quash the acquisition of their land, at the instance of respondent No. 4 Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Sindhari. A request for acquisition of the land, for the construction of 2km long road from Ramsar-ka-kuwa School to the Bus-stand of Ramsar-ka-kuwa was made to the Collector on 11th November, 1970. A resolution of the Panchayat Samjti duted October 10, 1970 was submitted to the Collector, The petitioners gave the description of their land in para 1 of the writ petition. The Collector then forwarded the matter to the State Government and, thereupon, the State Governmeut issued an order requiring the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barmer to proceed under under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A notice was issued, stating that land is required for public purpose i.e. for construction of a road in village Rawatsar, Tehsil Barmer, The land comprised of Khasra No. 766 was also mentioned in the notic...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Lal and anr. Vs. Shive Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj111; 1981()WLN578
G.M. Lodha, J.1.Babulal Shiv Charan Lal, plaintiff-appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Gangapur City, by which the decree passed by the Munsif, Hindon in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was modified.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent on the basis of a rent note executed by the defendant-respondent in favour of the plaintiff-appellants on 21-1-1957, by which the defendant agreed to pay the rent of the premises in question to the appellants at Rs. 30/- p.m. The execution of the rent deed was held to be proved by the trial court, and was not challenged before the first appellate court. Since the defendant did not pay the rent from 20-5-1964 to 25-5-1967, the plaintiff filed a suit. The present suit is for eviction and arrears of rent for Rs. 1,080/-3. The defendant admitted Rs. 1,500/-and that he executed an usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs and claimed that decree for eviction as we...
Tag this Judgment!Hyderali Vs. the Superintending Engineer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)369
M.C. Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner's grievance is that for his land situated at Square No. 163/399, the sanctioned Khala was from stone No. 161/400 to Stone No. 163/400. This Khala was subseqeuntly changed from Stone No. 161/401 to Stone No. 163/401 by the order of the Executive Engineer dated 14-1-81 and maintained by the Superintendent Engineer by his order dated 29-4-81. The petitioner submits that the petitioner's grand father Ahmed Deen, the original land holder, submitted his objection against the change of 'khola' on 19-4-1978. Ahmed Deen expired on 6-3-1980. The 'Khala' was changed without notice to the petitioner.3. Mr. Sandhu, learned Counsel for the non-petitioner No. 3, invited the attention of this Court to the application submitted by the Ahmed Deen on 9-11-76 to 'the Executive Engineer wherein he gave his consent. Acting on that consent the Divisional Irrigation officer affected the change of Khala. The learned Counsel for the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Sultan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)326
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. The appellant, Sultan, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar on the charges punishable Under Section 148, 302/149, 307/149, 323 and 323/149 IPC. By his judgment dated May 28, 1981, the learned Judge acquitted the appellant of all the aforementioned charges and instead convicted him under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. He awarded the accused appellant rigorous imprisonment for two years making it clear that the period of detention of the appellant from July 2, 1980 onwards until and during the course of the trial will be set off against the sentences awarded to him.2. Mr. Dhankar, learned Counsel for the appellant has not questioned the order of conviction passed by the learned trial Judge, against the appellant Under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. He has, lower, argued that the sentence awarded to him is excessive and that it should be reduced to the sentence already undergone by the appellant.3. It is not questioned by the learned Public Pro...
Tag this Judgment!Uda Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-1981
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)87
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This appeal filed by convicted accused Uda is directed against the judgment dated March 21, 1975 of learned Additional Addtional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, whereby he convicted the accused-appellant under Section, 302, I.P.C, for committing the murder of his wife Mst. Shankari and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Mst. Shankari (since deceased) was married to accused-appellant Uda about 4 or 5 years prior to the occurrence. Mst. Shankari want to her father's place and thereafter did not return back to the house of her husband. Uda came to fetch his wife, but she refused to oblige him. Oaths fateful day i.e. February 1, 1975 Mst. Shankari (since deceased) along with Mst. Champi (PW 1) went to work, as Labourer at the house of Radha Kishan, who was constructing a house in the village. Mst. Champi and Mst. Shankari went to fetch water. Mst. Champi filled her pitcher but Mst. Shankari remained behind. Seeing Mst. Shank...
Tag this Judgment!Kanta Prasad Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj136; 1981()WLN433
Kasliwal, J. A ceiling proceeding under chap. III-B of the Raja-sthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was initiated against Shri Bajrang Lal, father of the petitioner. Shri Bajrang Lal submitted a declaration showing himself, his wife, son and mother as members of his family. Bajrang Lal also took the plea that he had sold 18 biswas of land to Kishore and Ram Narain and as such the aforesaid land should be excluded Bajrang Lal further took the plea that he had handed over possession of certain portions of agricultural land to his mother and the son. Learned S. D. O. Baran, in his judgment, Annexure-4dated 31-10-75 held that according to the declaration made by Bajrang Lal, there were four members in his family. As regards the sale made in favour of Kishore and Ram Narain, neither any document nor any other evidence was produced. He further held that no document was produced to show that possession was handed over to the mother and the son. He further found that t...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Narbada and ors. Vs. Mohammad Hanif and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2330
ORDERK.S. Sidhu, J.1. This order will deal with a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa, purporting to have done so, under Section 395(2) of the Criminal P.C. 1973.2. The facts material for disposal of this reference may be shortly stated here. On December 25, 1980, one Mohamad Hanif gave information to the officer in charge of the police station, Dausa, alleging that he was in occupation of a shop as a tenant of accused Nar Singh Prasad, that he had locked the shop on December 24, evening, after the day's business was over, and that when he returned to it on December 25, morning, he found that his wares were lying outside the shop and it had been bolted from inside. Nar Singh Prasad, Ganga Sahai, father of Narsingh Prasad and Narbada Devi, wife of Narsingh Prasad, the three accused persons, began to throw stones from upstairs. One Shiv Kumar, a shopkeeper in the neighbourhood, sustained an injury with one of the stones hitting him. Mohd. Hanif further alleged that the...
Tag this Judgment!Mool Kanwar Vs. Jeewalal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj267
G.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit which was dismissed by the trial Court, but decreed by the first appellate Court. 2. Sualal died in 1962 leaving behind two sons Gujarmal and Jiwanlal. Gujarmal died in Samvat-Year 1974 leaving behind widow Mst. Narangi. 3. Mst. Narangi has sold this property to Mool Kanwar for a consideration of Rs. 600/-. 4. This sale was challenged by Jiwalal and his son Inderchand on the ground that Narangi had no right of ownership in the property and she could not have sold the property to Mool Kanwar. So far as other pleas are concerned regarding the plaintiff's having a will from deceased Gujarmal and challenge to consideration or allegation that the sale deed was executed when Narangi was paralytic and was not having proper senses, both the Courts have given concurrent finding against the plaintiffs, and, therefore, it is not necessary to deal with those points as none of them has been challenged before this Court. 5. The sole poi...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabh Chand Mehta Vs. Rajasthan Co-operative Diary Federation Limite ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)341
M.C. Jain, J.1. This writ petition raises a question as to whether the petitioner has been absorbed in the service of the non-petitioner No. 1 or he continues to be in the service of non-petitioner No. 2. In pursuance of the advertisement, the petitioner was appointed as Accounts trainee by the non-petitioner No. 2 namely : Paschimi Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sangh') vide order dated November 5, 1976 (Anx. 1). The petitioner was appointed as Accounts trainee along with three other persons and his position was at No. 2. It was mentioned in the order that on satisfactory completion of the training, the candidates may be considered for regular appointment, if vacancies available in the cadre of the Junior Accountants. It appears that the diary plant and chilling centres of the Sangh along with their staff were taken over and transferred to the non-petitioner No. 1 namely : Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Limited (for short 'the Federatio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »