Rajasthan Court February 1981 Judgments
Hari Singh Vs. Smt. Sringar Kanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN65
M.L. Shrimal J.1. This first appeal, at the instance of Hari Singh son of Shri Berisal Singh (adopted son), is directed against the judgment and decree, dated March 2, 1966, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, in Civil Original suit No. 48 of 1959/44 of 1960, whereby the learned Judge, after deciding issue No. 8 in favour of the defendants, dismissed the suit.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Hari Singh, son of Shri Amar Singh, was taken in adoption by Shri Berisal Singh and his wife Smt. Sringar Kan-war defendant No. 1 on December 24, 1943 and a deed reciting the ceremonies and the terms of adoption were also reduced into writing on the same date. On May 14, 1947, Berisal Singh, by a will registered on May 15, 1947, transferred some properties to defendant No. 2 Chander Singh, defendant No. 3 Bhanwar Bai and defendant No. 4 Gopi Singh and rest of the properties to defendant No. 1 Smt. Sringar Kanwar. On January 3, 1944, a gift deed was executed by B...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Bhagwan Viday Shankar Vs. Thakaramal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)121
D.P. Gupta, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment of the defendant from a shop, situated in the town of Churu which has been decreed by both the courts below.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are father and son and they purchased the suit shop, situated near Ghantaghar at Churu, for a sum of Rs. 11,000/- by means of a registered sale deed dated December 23, 1963 from Hariprashad. In para 5 of the plaint, it has been pleaded that the plaintiffs were carrying on their business on a rented shop, which was comparatively much smaller than the shop in dispute and was situated in a less important locality. The plaintiffs and members of their family desired to shift their existing business to the shop in dispute. The defendant was asked to vacate the shop but as he failed to do so, a notice terminating his tenancy was served on July 9, 1964, and as the defendant failed to vacate the shop inspite of servics of notice upon him, the suit for ejectment on the ground o...
Tag this Judgment!Mastana Ram and 12 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)223
G.M. Lodha, J.1. These 13 writ petitions involve common question of facts and law. I have, therefore, accepted joint request of learned Counsel for the parties that they should be decided by a common judgment.2. All the petitioners are residents of village Dholipal of Ganga-nagar District. Gram Panchayat Dholipal is functioning under the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It prepared a lay out plan for the development of Abadi (and of village Dholipal and this plan was approved in a general meeting of entire village of Dholipal on April 15, 1972. After its lay out plan was approved by the Gram Panchayat, the Panchayat Samid also recommended for its approval. The Patwari and the Tehsildar concerned sent similar recommendation. The Government of Rajasthan (Panchayat and Development Department) by their letter dated 19th September, 1972 accorded their sanction to the lay out plan as submitted by Gram Panchayat, Dholipal. A direction was fur...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Pemi Bai Vs. Smt. Sankalibai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN553
N.R. Mal Lodha, J.1. A learned Single Judge of this Court was of the view that the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in Fakira v. Board of Revenue to the effect that it is well settled that in a case whereone of the legal representation of the deceased appellant or respondent is already on record, even though in another capacity, the proceedings will not abate simply because the other legal representatives are there and an application has not been made in time to bring them on the record, appear to be contrary to what was observed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Bhanwarlal v. Bhuli AIR 1972 Raj 205. He has, therefore, referred the following question for determination:whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeals abate as against the deceased-respondent Phooli Bai and if so, whether the appeals can be proceeded in the absence of Smt. Lehri Bai, daughter of the deceased Phooli Bai?These two appeals are before us for answering the above quest...
Tag this Judgment!Lachhmi Devi and ors. Vs. S. Rajmal Golecha and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Raj308
Shrimal, J. 1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, is directed against the judgment and decree of a single Bench of this Court, delivered on November 16. 1971, whereby the learned Judge held that as the appellant failed to bring in time the legal representativesof Shri Brijlal on record, the appeal abated as a whole and in the absence of the legal representatives of Brijlal, the surviving appellants were not entitled to continue the appeal. 2. The facts giving rise to this special appeal are that Raimal Golecha Ltd. instituted a suit on November 15, 1948 for rendition of accounts against Shri Ganesh Narain and Phoolchand in the Court of the District Judge, Jaipur city. In the course of trial defendant No. 1 Shri Ganesh Narain died in August, 1951 and his sons Shri Brijlal and Dhanna Lal were brought on record as his legal representatives. Learned Senior Civil Judge, vide his judgment, dated 28th July, 1959, dismissed the plaintiffs suit aga...
Tag this Judgment!Mewar Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal No. 2 and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)205
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. This writ petition is filed by Mewar Textiles Mills Ltd. Bhilwara for quashing the award given by Industrial Tribunal No. 1 Rajasthan, Jaipur in the following circumstances: Petitioner Mewar Textiles Mills Ltd., Bhilwara is having its factory and business at Bhilwara and doing the business of manufacturing yarn and weaving of cloth and its processing. The company has also a dyeing and bleeching department. Non-petitioner No. 3 Sahbudin was a workman of the petitioner and was working in the dyeing and bleeching department. While working in the factory, Sahbudin met with an accident on 9-6-1971. During the course of the treatment, four fingers and the palm of the left hand of Sahbudin was amputed. He lost 50% of his earning capacity. Sahbudin appeared before the petitioner on 1-4 1972 with a medical certificate Ex. 1 declaring him fit with the remark that 'the wound has been completely healed, he may be used for light work after proper training.' It appears that Sahb...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Singh and Six ors. Vs. the University of Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN18
Kalyan Datta Sharma, C.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H. M. Parekh, Advocates, appearing on behalf of the respondents at the of admission.2. These writ petitions--7 in number--have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for obtaining the following reliefs:(1) that by an appropriate writ or order, the University of Jodhpur may be directed to withdraw the notification dated July 31, 1980, issued by the Registrar and Ordinance No. 35 of the University of Jodhpur may be struck down and it may be ordered that the petitioners be admitted in Second Year T.D.C. Classes of the Jodhpur University;(2) that any other appropriate writ, order or direction that may be considered just and proper in the circumstances of the case may be issued; and(3) that the costs of the writ petitions may be awarded to the petitioners.3. It will not be out of place to mention that in writ petition No. 2248 of 1980 filed by Mahendra Singh against the University of Jodhpur, an...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Mal Mina Vs. Ratan Lal Tambi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Raj249; 1981()WLN16
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. In this election petition, the petitioner has submitted an application for leave to present the replication to the reply filed by the non-petitioner.2. The non-petitioner has raised a preliminary objection to the filing of the replication. Mr. M.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the non-petitioner, submitted that there is no provision under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') permitting filing of replication and thescheme of the provisions on the contrary appears to be that by necessary implication and intendment, filing of replication by the petitioner is excluded even with the permission of the Court. Shri Singhvi referred to the provisions contained in Sections 83, 86(5) and 97 of the Act and submitted that the election petitioner is required to state all material facts on which the petitioner relies and full particulars of the corrupt practice have to be alleged by the petitioner and under Sub-section (5) of Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Moolchand Soni Vs. Virendra Kumar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN70
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. The question in this appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled to enlargement of time spent in obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree of the trial court until the date of delivery or he will be entitled to exclusion of time under Section 12 of the Limitation Act only upto the date when the notice that the copy is ready was issued, in accordance with Rule 235 of the Rajasthan General Rules (Civil) 1952 (hereinafter called 'The Rules').2. The decree in the instant case was passed by the trial court on March 16, 1979 and an application for obtaining certified copies of judgment and decree was filed on March 22 1979. March 29, 1979 was the date fixed for issuing the certified copies, but on that day the copies were not ready for delivery and no further date appears to have been given to the appellant for obtaining the certified copies. On April 11, 1979 a notice under Rule 235 was issued and was affixed on the notice board notifying that the...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Singh Vs. the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)78
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Petitioner Gulab Singh contested an election or Ward Panch for Ward No. 8 of Grampanchayat Suratpura, Tehsil Bhadra. The election was held on 13th February, 19782. As per the results declared by the Returning Officer petitioner received 75 votes and respondent no. 3 Vijay Singh also received 75 votes. 5 votes were declared invalid. The Returning Officer on account of result of the toss, declared the petitioner elected.3. Vijay Singh preferred an election petition in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra. It was filed on 21st February, 1978. Certain preliminary objections were taken and decided on 22-5-78. Recount was ordered and on the basis of the recount, the respondent no. 3 Vijay Singh was declared elected as Panch.4. This writ petition has been filed against the judgment of the Election Tribunal Munsif and Judicial Magistrate dated 22-5-78 & 28-3-79.5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the election petition filed in this case was ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »