Rajasthan Court April 1982 Judgments
Ram Dhan Vs. Jagat Prasad Sethi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Raj235; 1982()WLN284
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This civil second appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated Dec. 17, 1981 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif (West) Jaipur City, Jaipur dated Jan. 18, 1975 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.2. The defendant-respondent No. 3 filed a caveat at the stage of admission of the appeal. On 5-3-1982, arguments in the appeal were heard for a considerable long time and no sooner than an order was going to be dictated in the court, learned counsel, for the appellant made an oral request that he may be permitted to withdraw the suit itself. On this, an order was passed that no oral request could be considered at that stage. Learned counsel for the appellant then prayed for granting time to move an application in writing in this regard. The appellant, thereafter, submitted an application on 8-3-82 under Order 23, Rule 1, Sub-rule (1) read with Section 11...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Kishan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2324
ORDERK.D. Sharma, C.J.1. The only point argued before me by Mr. D. Parihar learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur committed an error in transferring this case to the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Dungarpur vide his order dated 6-8-79 marked Annexure 18 and annexed with the petition. In support of the above contention he invited my attention to the provisions contained in Section 410, Cr. P.C. which clearly provides that any Chief Judicial Magistrate may withdraw any case from or recall any case which he. has made over to any Magistrate subordinate to him and may inquire into or try such case himself or refer it for inquiry or trial to any other Magistrate competent to inquire into or try the same, Mr. D. Parihar further contended that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur himself was trying this case before he passed the order of transfer of this case to the Munsiff Judicial Magistrate Dungarpur. According to the submission of M...
Tag this Judgment!Girdhar Singh and anr. Vs. Anand Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Raj229; 1982()WLN246
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This is a civil appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated 2-8-1972 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tonk dated 10-8-1967 dismissing the suit for declaration and possession.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the plaintiffs-appellants (minors) filed a suit through their guardian Mathura Lal on 22-10-1967 with the allegations that their father Nand Singh died four years ago at village Phuleta, Tehsil Aligarh. The plaintiffs were minor at that time and after the death of Nand Singh had acquired Khatedari rights in the agricultural land left by Nand Singh and were heirs of other properties left by Nand Singh. Initially the suit was filed against Anand Singh and Mst. Chhatra Kanwar widow of Nand Singh, but subsequently, Mst. Phhol Kanwar daughter of Nand Singh was also added as defendant No. 3 by the order of the court dated 10-...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council, Ajmer Vs. Narinder Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Raj289; 1982()WLN521
N.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. This Civil Second Appeal by the Municipal Council, Aimer is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Aimer, dated February 11, 1971 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Aimer City (East), Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 80/66.2. The facts of the case in narrow-compass are that the plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for perpetual injunction against the Municipal Council, Ajmer on the allegations that the plaintiff, with a view to put up constructions on the site at Daulat Bagh given in the plan attached with the plaint, applied to the Municipal Council, Aimer on 1-9-1965 for granting sanction of the constructions mentioned in the aforesaid plan. The said plan with the modification mentioned in the letter, by the defendant-council dated 8-10-1965 was sanctioned and the same was duly conveyed to the plaintiff' with the corrected sanctioned plan by the aforesaid letter dated 8-10-1965. The defendant subsequently, by i...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nirmala Gehlot Vs. the Director of Primary and Secondary Educatio ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN195
M.C. Jain, J.1. This writ petition raises a question as to the construction of the order passed by this Court in a previous writ petition filed by the petitioner No. 41 of 1971 - Smt. Nirmala Gehlot v. Director of Primary & Secondary Education and Ors. decided on February 20, 1975. The order in that writ petition was passed in the following terms,:In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The orders passed by the Deputy Director (Female) Education Department, Jodhpur, dated May 15, 1970 (Ex.2) and May 27, 1970 (Ex.3) are quashed and the petitioner is also entitled to be reinstated on her post with effect from the date of the illegal termination of her services, i e. from May 15, 1970. The order for the petitioner's reinstatement with effect from May 15, 1970, has become necessary because the temporary services of the petitioner were extended by the order dated January 16, 1970 upto June 30, 1970 and she was entitled to continue on her post till such time. In the circumstances of the...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam Rasool and ors. Vs. Abdul Gaffar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)224
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. The second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption, which was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jodhpur on September 16, 1974. Briefly stated, the facts which have given rise to this appeal, are that according to the plaintiff the property in dispute in the suit, which is situated in the city of Jodhpur, originally belonged to Peerbux and Hussain son of Imambux. They mortgaged the suit property to Fakir Mohd. and his father Nathuji for a sum of Rs 101/- in Samvat year 1973. In Samvat year 1984, Nathuji and his wife Ashi and son Fakir Mohd. sub mortgaged the suit property for Rs. 100/- to Kadarbux It was further alleged by the plaintiff that Mohd. Hanif and Ajeem, defendants Nos. 3 and 4. who are successors of Peerbux and Hussain, sold the equity of redemption to the plaintiffs by a registered sale deed dated January 2, 1963 for a sum of Rs. 2000/- The plaintiffs, therefore, filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage regardine the property i...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Singh S/O Kulwant Singh Vs. Smt. Patwant Kaur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)59
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. The respondent wife has filed an application for interim maintenance and for expenses of proceedings in the present revision petition. The trial court had fixed an interim maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month. The respondent has put in her appearance in this Court on 7-12-1981 and the revision petition has remained pending for almost 4 1/2 months. The petitioner should, therefore, make payment of interim maintenance for a period of 4 1/2 months @ Rs. 300/- per month i.e. Rs. 1,350/- in all towards interim maintenance during the pendency of the revision petition. The petitioner should also make payment of a sum of Rs. 250/- as expenses to the respondent in respect of the present proceedings in this Court. Thus, the petitioner should make payment of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent in all, in respect of interim maintenance during the pendency of the revision petition and expenses. The petitioner Rajendra Singh, is allowed one month's time to make payment of the amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Bhopal Singh and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)148
Kalyan Dutta Sharma, C.J.1. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 84 of 1977 filed by Bhopal Singh and Bachhu Khan and S.B. Criminal Revision No. 36 of 1977 filed by Swaroop Singh do arise out of one and the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge Balotra, dated January 11, 1977, whereby the appeals filed by the aforesaid three petitioners against their convictions and sentences under Section 223, I.P.C. were partly accepted in as much as their convictions were maintained, but they were released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. As both these revision petitions are directed against one and the same judgment of the Sessions Judge and as common questions of law and facts do arise in both of then, they are disposed of together by a single order of mine.2. The prosecution case, in brief against the petitioners was that on October 8, 1973, the Idan accused was on undertrial prisoner in sub-Jail Balotra, as he was facing trial under Section 302, I.P.C. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prasad and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)69
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. The appellants along with six others (since acquitted) were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, for the charges of abduction of Smt. Ladu and causing injuries to her, her brother and parents. The learned Sessions Judge held the appellants guilty for the offence under Sections 366, 147, 325/149, 323 and 323/149 I.P.C. By the judgment dated 3-1-77, the learned Sessions Judge sentenced all the appellants for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. to one year's rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. they all were sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under Section 325/149 I.P.C. they were sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Appellant Uchab was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 23 I.P.C....
Tag this Judgment!Pooran Das Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)60
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Appellant Poorandas was tried for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur. The learned Judge found him guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to under go three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 366 Indian Penal Code and four year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine lo under go three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code.2. Broadly speaking the prosecution ease giving rise to the trial of the appellant and his conviction and sentence is as under:--Surji (P.W. 1) daughter of Bhoora Ram (P.W. 2) resident of Harijan Basti at Jodhpur was sitting out side her house on April 20, 1976 at about 5.30 p. n. The appellant went there and allured her for new clothes and ornaments if she would go with h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »