Rajasthan Court December 1982 Judgments
Kesardeo and ors. Vs. Hariram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-23-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN730
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. This first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff's whose suit for declaration was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that it was barred by limitation.2. The case of the plaintiffs was that Bhagwandas and Madan Gopal, who were the ancestors of the parties, jointly purchased some land and constructed temples of Pitreshwerji and Hanumanji and such land and a well, a tank and a 'Bagichi' were also made. According to the plaintiffs, the descendents of both Bhagwandas and Madangopal jointly defrayed the expenses incurred in the maintenance of the aforesaid temples and other structures constructed over the land upto Samvat 2000. Thereafter the plaintiffs suggested that the parties may manage the aforesaid properties by turns, but the defendants postponed a decision in the matter and did not pay any attention to the suggestion made by the plaintiffs but continued to manage the temples and other properties unilaterally in their own manner, which resulted in mi...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaj Devi Singh Vs. H.H. Maharaja Gaj Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-23-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)427
D.P. Gupta, J1. These three appeals, arise out of a common order passed by the learned by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated February 6, 1982 by which he dismissed the applications filed by the plaintiff appellant as by defendants Nos. 3,5 and (sic) before him, for appointment of a receiver under order 40 Rule 1 C.P.C. and in the alternative for issuing a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. As all these three appeals arise out of the same suit and pertain to the same matter, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.2. The undisputed facts are that Maharaja Umaid Singh of Jodhpur died on June 18, 1947 and his eldest son, Hanuwant Singh succeeded him to the 'gaddi' as the Ruler of the former State of Jodhpur, while his other sons, Himmat Singh, plaintiff Devi Singh and Dalip Singh defendants were given maintenance grants by Maharaja Hanuwantsingh. On May 1(sic), 1948 Maharaja Hanuwantsingh executed a covenant and later a merger agre...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dayal and anr. Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj172
ORDER1. In both these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (Annexure 7) dated 5th November, 1982, and as such the same are being disposed of by one single order. 2. The petitioner Ram Dayal in writ petition No. 1801/1982 and Radhey Shyam in writ petition No. 1802/82, were granted one temporary permit each by the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter called 'the R.T.A.') by a resolution No. 50, D/- 28th August, 1982. The route is Dausa-Gudachanderji, which is 61 Kms. long and 'A' class in nature. The scope on this route was 6 permits to ply four return trips. By resolution No. 7 dated 28th August, 1982, the R.T.A. Jaipur, revised the scope to 8 permits and six return services. The petitioners submitted applications for grant of temporary permits on the two increased scope of permits. The R.T.A. by resolution No. 50 D/- 28th August, 1982, granted one temporary permit each in favour of the petitioners. The order granting te...
Tag this Judgment!Manohari Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1231
Kasliwal, J.1. The petitioner. Manohari, was arrested in a case. F.I.R. No. 48/82. lodged under Sections 395. 396 and 397, I.P.C. He was arrested by the police on April 30, 1982, and at present he is lodged in sub-jail, Bandikui. The petitioner submitted a bail application on June 29, 1982. which came up for consideration before G. M. Lodha, J. Lodha. J. considered that important questions were canvassed before him which had wide repercussions in various cases and as such he considered it necessary that there must be authoritative pronouncement on those questions and thus referred the case to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench. By order- of the Chief Justice the matter has now been placed before the Division Bench. Learned Single Judge in his order, dated Sept. 17, 1982, has mentioned the following four questions to be considered as important questions of law argued before him:1. Whether the remand granted in the absence of the accused can be valid?2. Whether in ...
Tag this Judgment!Tejiya and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)365
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Banswara dated April 6, 1977 by which the appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 147 and 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months R.I. each on the first count and five year R.I. each on the second count with an order that the sentences awarded on two counts shall run concurrently.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as under: About a year prior to the murder of Natha, when he had gone to have a watch on his field, appellants Tejiya Laleng and Kamji gave a beating to him and snatched his ornaments. Natha instituted a case against them which was pending in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kushalgarth. Thereafter, a few days prior to the present incident Dalla had given a beating to Natha. Natha went to Kalinjara to lodge the report. When he was returning from Kalinjara, Poonja (PW 4) met him in the way near ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sayar Bai Vs. Smt. Yashoda Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj161; 1982()WLN621
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. The question which arises for determination in this appeal is that as to when a larger interest in immovable property than possessed by the transferor is sought to be transferred by him whether the transfer would not be affected by the principle of lis pendens or such a transferee would still be a re-presentative-in-interest of the judgment-debtor, in execution of the decree passed against the predecessor-in-interest of the transferor.2. The facts which have given rise to these proceedings are that Shri Kishan mortgaged with possession the property in dispute with Chaganlal, Paras Ram and Mool Chand. Gordhanlal, Pannalal and Shankar Lal had claim for money against Mool Chand and they obtained a money decree against Moolchand with the stipulation that the decretal amount shall be realised from the property of Moolchand. The mortgagee rights in the disputed property were attached in execution of the decree obtained by Gordhanlal and others and were sold at an auction ...
Tag this Judgment!Cpl. Gokul Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1223
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. By this appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, the petitioner Cpl. Gokul Ram questions the correctness of the order dated Nov. 29, 1982 of the learned single Judge by which his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed.2. A few facts leading to this appeal may briefly be noticed :The appellant, who was the petitioner before the learned single Judge will be referred hereinafter as 'the petitioner.' The petitioner was appointed as Airman Corporal in the Indian Air Force on Jan. 18, 1971 and has been serving as such since then. He was posted at 32. Wing Indian Air Force at Jodhpur and was working as Medical Assistant there since Oct. 8, 1979. It is said that on May 27, 1982 there was a section got together with rum and dinner for S S. Q. Staff and their families to bid farewell to Wing Commander T. S. Murti, the outgoing S. M.O. It is said that in connection with the incident detailed in para 4 of the writ petition relati...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan Vs. Bajranglal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)319
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Respondent Bajranglal, Amilal and Annesingh were tried for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 394 and 129(b) of the Indian Penal Code by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner and were acquited of the charges by the judgment dated December 3, 1976. The State of Rajasthan felt aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal and preferred this appeal in this Court after seeking leave to appeal.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as under: Ramchander (P.W. 1.) complainant had settled the marriage of his daughters and therefore, in the month of 'Vaishakh' S Y. 2028, he asked Rameshwar (P.W 6.) to arrange for some gold for him. Rameshwar informed Ramchander that Amilal had been married in his village and he would arrange for the gold at a cheap rate. Rameshwar then informed Ramchander that Amilal would arrange for the gold at the rate of Rs 200/- per tola. At the instance of Rameshwar, Ramchander, Amilal, Annesingh and Chorula...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Vidya Devi Vs. Basant Kumar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)322
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Petitioner Smt. Vidya Devi had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cods of Criminal Procedure against her husband Basant Kumar for maintenance for her self and her minor son and daughter. By the order dated 6th December, 1976, the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar allowed and application and passed an order or a monthly amount of Rs. 75/- per month for the petitioner and Rs. 30/- each for her son and daughter.2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 6th December, 1976 the non-petitioner Basant Kumar preferred a revision petition in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri-Ganganagar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge partly allowed the revision petition and reduced the amount of Rs. 75/- per month to Rs. 50/- to be payable to the petitioner Smt. Vidya Devi.3. Being dissatisfied by this reduction in her amount of maintenance Smt. Vidya Devi has preferred this revision petition in this Court.4. The point to be determined in thi...
Tag this Judgment!Pemla Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)374
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 26, 1 76 passed by the Sessions Judge by which the appellant Pemla was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case leading to the trial of Pemla and the present appeal are as under. The she-goats of Kana, husband of deceased Smt. Mani used to enter the field of appellant Pemla and for that reason deceased Smt. Mani and Navli, wife of appellant Pemla had quarrelled. On May 26, 1975 there was not exchange of words between the two ladies. At about 7.00 P.M. Pemla appellant, armed with a muzzle loading gun went to the house of Kana (P.W.3 ) situated near his own house. He reprimanded Smt. Mani about her picking up quarrel with his wife. Thereafter the appellant fired the gun towards Smt. Mini causing injuries ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »