Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1981WLN(UC)58
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent.2. The only question argued in this appeal is as to whether the plaintiff appellants are entitled to get a decree for ejectment on the ground of defaults in payment of rent.3. The defendant is said to be a tenant of the plaintiff in respect of upper portion of the premises situated in Bikaner, on a monthly rent of Rs. 9/- The defendant paid rent upto November 27, 1963. According to the plaintiff, thereafter the defendant did not make payment of rent. On the other hand, the defendant alleged that he sent rent by money-orders, but the plaintiff refused to accept the same and they were returned with the endorsement of refusal. The suit for ejectment was based on three grounds, namely defaults in payment of rent, personal necessity and material damage to the leased property. All the allegations were denied by the defendants. The question of material damage to the property was not p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1982Raj119
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur on Mar. 30, 1968 and arises in the following circumstances.2. One Chaturbhuj had four sons, Sitaram, Ramlal, Kriparam and Daya-ram. Sitaram had a son Chhotu, while Dayaram had a son Salehraj and Ramlal died issueless. Kriparam had two sons Nenji and Bastiram. Shivnarain and Laxminarayan plaintiffs are the sons of Nenji, while their third brother Ganeshlal is said to have gone in adoption to Ramlal. Bastiram left his widow Smt. Gauri, a son Arjunsingh and five daughters including Omkumari and Smt Raji defendants. Arjunsingh who was unmarried, died on July 17, 1952, leaving two houses situated in Mohalla Khanda Falsa at Jodhpur. After the death of Arjunsingh, the plaintiffs Shivnarain and Laxminarain asserted their claims in, respect of the estate of Arjunsingh deceased on the ground of being his nearest heir, as they were Arjunsingh's uncle's sons. In one o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1981WLN497
K.S. Sidhu J1. The only question, though crucial one which falls for determination in this petition of revision is whether the rights and liabilities of the landlord and tenant in a suit for eviction instituted, under Section 13, Rajasthan Premises (Control or Rent and Eviction), Act, 1950, (hereafter called the Act), before the amendment of the Act by the Rajasthan Ordinance No. 26 of 1975, since replaced by the Rajasthan Amending Act No. 14 of 1976 are governed by Section 13, as it stood before the amendment or by the amendments enacted during the pendency of the suit. It has arisen in the following circumstances.2. The landlord, Firozibai, brought a suit against Jagdish Prasad and Ram Bharoselal, her tenants, for a decree for eviction from a shop on the ground, inter alia, that they had neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from them for six months. On April 5, 1973, which appears to have been the first day of hearing in the suit, the tenants deposited in the court a sum ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1981WLN(UC)166
M.C. Jain, J.1. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition may briefly be stated as under. The petitioner-firm has been assessed for Rajasthan Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax for two years from 1-4-77 to 31-3-1979 by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward C-1, Makrana, his orders dated 5-11-80 (Ex. 1 to Ex. 4) and simultaneously he imposed penalty under Section 7AA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act as amended by the Amending Act No. 4 of 1979. The petitioner went in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jodhpur. He moved an application for staying recovery of the penalty. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration) by its order dated 4-3-1981 declined to stay the recovery of the amount of penalty. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the imposition of penalty under Section 7AA and has also prayed that the order, which has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration) on 4-3-1981 refu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1981CriLJ1316
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J.1. Bail without jail' in a rape case is an extraordinary situation, but the case is also unusual and the allegations puzzling.2. Abdul Majid has filed this application for bail under Section 438, Cr. P. ,C. The victim of the alleged offence is Mst. Munni Bai wife of Sheikh Jawan kfied about 40 years. In an extremely belated First Information Report, story of the prosecution is that while Munni Bai was going to the field for giving the food to her husband, accused intervened near Nala with a gun and physically caught hold of her and took her to the Nala and forcibly committed rape on her. Munni Bai tried to push back the accused but could not succeed. Two brothers of thP .husband of Munni Bai suddenly appeared there at the time the accused was on the verge of running and saw him running from the scene of occurrence. Even then, it is alleged that Munni Bai went all alone with the food to the field of her husband.3. learned Counsel for the accused has submitted that a f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1981WLN(UC)62
K.D. Sharma, C.J.1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1858 of 1975 filed by Col. Mohan Singh and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1874 of 1975 filed by Narendra Singh against the State of Rajasthan and Anr., arise out of almost identical facts and so they are disposed of together by one single order.2. The relevant facts giving rise to these petitions may be briefly narrated as follows:--Col. Mohan Singh along with his son Narendra Singh was personally cultivating land comprised in Khasra No. 4 situated at village Bicharli in District Jodhpur since year 1951 as a tenant of Khudkasht of Maharaja Shri Gaj Singh of Jodhpur. The land including 'Kacholia Beria' was taken by Col. Mohan Singh on lease in the year 1951 from Maharaja Shri Gaj Singh for a period of 10 years and paid Rs. 3800/-, per annum as lease money for the land in question. Subsequent thereto possession of the land known as 'Kacholia Beria' was handed over by Col. Mohan Singh, petitioner, to Maharaja Shri Gaj Singh in the year 1961. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1981CriLJ1131
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. A long drawn debate about the applicability of the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970, the present trends of reformative jurisprudence, the futility of deterrent punishment and liberal attitude, regarding the quantum of punishment to children highlighted the arguments of this case. The object of heinous offence of rape is a girl of five years of age. The rapist is of 13 to 16 years. But the police in its zeal to show him more than his age, altered the arrest memo by overwriting 18 on 17 years. Doctor estimated him to be of 15 years and the Court estimate ranged between 15 to 16 years.2. The conviction has been recorded under Section 376 I.P.C. -and the sentence is five years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment. Fairly enough, the conviction has not been challenged and that avoids traditional mention of the facts of the case and evidence recorded in support of it, the detailed discu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1981WLN(UC)164
G.M. Lodha, J.1. This is an unusual case, where criminal complaint filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate on 3-9-1979 and on which an order was passed for investigation reached the S.H.O. concerned on 3-1-1981. The offence alleged is said to be about the dispute in relation to truck which was allegedly in partnership of the complaint to start with and for it a civil litigation is alleged to b'; pending between the parties. The accused in his application has alleged that this long time of one and half year was taken by the complainant for backmailing of the accused by keeping the complaint pending as a hanging sword.2. The learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to give any reply to this unusual extra ordinary delay. According to him all that he can say is that the complaint was received on 3-1-1981 and the date of filing is not in dispute.3. The case as per the first information report relates to some transaction which took place for the first time in 1975 regarding the partnership...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1981WLN339
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115 CPC has been filed by the defendant-petitioners against the order dated February 6, 1981 of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, by which, he directed the defendants to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month from the date of the application dated October 15, 1979 to the plaintiff-non-petitioner on the condition that the next friend of the minor plaintiff furnishes a security for the return of the amount so received in the event of the suit being dismissed.2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner Sandhya through her next friend instituted a suit against the defendant-petitioners under Section 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (No. 78 of 1976) (for short 'the Act hereafter) averring that she is the daughter of late Anand Singh Kachhawa by his second wife Smt. Sheela Devi. Anand Singh died on April 2, 1977. Anand Singh bequathed his properties by a Will to the petitioners who are in their possession after his death....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1981Raj233; 1981()WLN379
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. In this second appeal, arising out of a suit for eviction of a tenant from the rented premises, learned counsel for the tenant appellant has made two submissions: His first contention is that the expression 'the first date of hearing' occurring in Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') should be construed as the date on which the Court applied its mind to the facts of the case and framed the issues and not the date fixed for appearance in the summons issued to the defendant. The second contention of learned counsel is that the trial Court failed to determine the amount payable by the tenant in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act and the amount, deposited by the tenant towards arrears of rent and interest thereon, was withdrawn by the landlord plaintiff on July 31, 1969, during the pendency of the suit without any demur and as such t...
Tag this Judgment!