Rajasthan Court May 1985 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bheru Vs. Ghasi Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN167
Guman Mal Lodha J.1. This is a defendent's appeal in a suit for eviction which has been decreed on the ground of default.2. The short point raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the defendant in his written statement disputed the amount of rent on various grounds and deposit that part of it which was undisputed. The trial court did not act under Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 as it stood when the case came up for consideration Mr. Tikku's contention is that since the trial court failed to do its duty of determining the rent under Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act of 1950 as it was in existence at the relevant time i.e. May 15, 1975. Therefore, the judgments of both the lower courts were vitiated.3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not disputed that sec-section (5) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 was in the following form in force at th...
Baldeo Singh Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)77
K.S. Lodha, J.1. These two cases arise out of the same circumstances and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. These are two applications for transfer of two sessions cases pending before the learned Sessions Judge Bikaner to the Court of Sessions at Ganganagar3. The learned P.P. has accepted notices of the applications. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.4. I need not state the facts of the case at any length because in my opinion, in view of the decision of this Court in S.B. Criminal Reference No. 2/84 State v. Jagdish decided on 15-4 85, the cases deserve to be tried by the Court of the Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar in as much as it relates to an incident at the Railway Station, Jodhewala, which is under the sessions division Ganganagar. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge Bikaner by Railway Magistrate, Bikaner because his court was situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner....
Gordhan Das Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN7
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a civil second appeal filed by the plaintiff appellant against the judgment & decree passed by the District Judge, Bharatpur, accepting the appeal of the State defendant and reversing the judgment of the Civil Judge, Bharatpur.2. The substantial question of law framed by this court on 14-11-1977 while admitting his appeal for consideration, reads as under:Whether the judgment of the appellate court is in violation of the provisions of Section 43 of the Evidence Act and, therefore, it is illegal 3. Section 43 of the Evidence Act reads as under '43 Judgment, etc. other than those mentioned in Sections 40 to 42, when relevent.Judgments orders of decrees, other than those mentioned in Sections 40, 41 and 42 are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree, is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of this Act. It appears from the judgment of the appellate court that the judgment was not passed only on the judgment of c...
Anand Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)265
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar dated 22nd March, 1984, whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by Shri Anand Singh and upheld the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Data Ramgarh, dated 19-9-1983 in a matter regarding disposal of property under Section 457 Cr.PC.2. The whole controversey centres round the application under Section 457 read with Section 451 Cr.PC dated 12-8-1983. An application on this very subject matter had been dismissed on 30-5-1983. When this later application was filed the learned counsel for non-petitioner wrote on the back of the application that he has no objection if the property is handed over to petitioner on a supardginama and the learned Magistrate on 19-8-1983 ordered the delivery of property to petitioner.3. On 24-8-1983 the non-petitioner moved an application that order dated 19-8-1983 be cancelled. On this application the learned Magistrate after heari...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalyan Sahai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN54
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal as well as the cross-objection are directed against the judgment of Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur partly accepting the appeal of the defendants modifying the decree of the trial Court.2. The plaintiff is a teacher and he claimed that on July 17, 1953 he District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur was entitled to draw his salary in grade of Rs.70-125 and from July 12, 1963 he was entitled to second grade.3. The claim was based on the ground that his juniors Shri Ghisilal, Shri Udai Marain and and Shri Nandlal who were less qualified and who were junior in tenure of service also got the equal grade on July 17, 1953, but his case has not been considered on account of the mistake in the seniority list where he has been shown as junior.4. Both the lower Courts have come to the conclusion that it is correct that in the seniority list the mistake was committed and Shri Ghisi Lai, Shri Udai Narain and Shri Nand Lai were shown senior to the...
Smt. Koka Devi Vs. Smt. Sarjoo Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN45
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a civil second appeal under Section 100 CPC directing against the judgment & decree passed by the District Judge, Jaipur District, confirming the judgment and decree passed by Civil & Asstt. Sessions Judge, Jaipur.2. The appellant before this court is the plaintiff who, has got a house in Chowkri Purani Basti, Jaipur, adjacent to the disputed house. Both the disputed house and the plaintiff's house are parts of the same 'Haveli'. The disputed house was originally owned by the defendant No. 2 M.M. Tiwari Two chowks, 'Pole', staircase and latrine in the Haveli' are in the joint ownership of the plaintiff, the defendants and other residents of the Haveli.3. On 12th June, 1962, the defendant No. 2 executed a sale deed of the house in dispute for Rs. 6700/- in favour of the defendant No. 1 Smt. Sarjoo Devi.4. The plaintiff being a co-sharer asserted the right of pre-emption.5. The plaintiff's case is that there is custom of pre-emption in the State of Jaipur an...
Nathu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ413; 1985WLN(UC)599
Gopal Krishna Sharma, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by appellant Nathu through the jail authorities against his conviction Under Section 302, IPC.2. The learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 30th Sept. 1982, found the appellant guilty of the offence Under Section 302, IPC, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 7 months' R.I. It was also directed that from the amount of fine realised from the accused, a sum of Rs. 800/- be given to Mst. Dali.3. The incident took place on 4th July, 1982, but the report Ex. P1 in this connection was lodged on 5th July, 1982, by one Prabhat at Police Outpost - Newai, where it was alleged that on 4th July, 1982, at about 8.30 p.m., he came to his house from his shop. He found that on the Chabutra in front of his house, Kishore was lying injured, and a large number of persons had collected there. There were injuries on the left side of the stomach of Kishore ...
Gram Panchayat Vs. Bala Prasad (Dead) Through Banwari Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN792
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment of Civil Judge, Alwar in Civil Appeal No. 34 of 197C setting aside the decree passed by Additional Munsif, Alwar.2. The facts, in short, of this case are that the plaintiff owns Khasras Nos. 929, 781, 785, 774, 775 and 780 of agricultural land located by the side of way. It is alleged that Gram Panchayat Ramgarh by its judgment dated February 11, 1961 has held that plaintiff has encroached upon the land of way in the portion shown in para No. 2 of the plaint. The Panchayat Samiti has also dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff by us order dated October 31, 1962. So the plaintiff went in revision, which was also dismissed on April 15, 1963. The contention of the plaintiff was that the Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction to try that claim and had no power to infilict penalty. It has been further alleged that the Gram Panchayat should be restrained from recovering the penalty, which has accrued after the order date...
Prabhu Lal Vs. Kalu Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN289
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is defendant's appeal against the judgment of Additional District Judges Tonk upholding the judgment of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Tonk granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff in a suit for eviction and arrears of rent.2. The facts so far as the relationship of landlord and tenant and the shop having undergone some alterations, which is the main bedrock of finding of eviction under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here inafter referred to as 'the Act') is not in dispute.3. The plaintiff's case was that the defendent without his permission has made certain constructions. These allegations contained in the plaint as under:^^ ;g fd blds vykok izfroknh us ekg vDVwcj] 1971 es oknh dh nqdku ds ckgj ds Nhuks dk ikVhZ'ku yxkdj nqkdu dks NksVk dj fn;k gS rFkk nqdku es euekuh rksM+&QksM;+ o ,Mh'kuy vkyVas'ku fcuk Lohd`r o fcuk ethZ oknh djk nh gS A vkSj nqdku dks izfroknh u substantially damage s dj fn;k gS A izfr...
Raghu Nath and Munir Vs. JamaluddIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN795
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a civil second appeal of a tenant defendent against whom the suit for eviction has been decreed by the appellate court. I he decree has been passed on the basis of the finding in favour of the plaintiffs landlord that the necessity of suit premises of the plaintiffs is both reasonable and bonafide.2. After the amendment introduced in Section 13, of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (for brevity, the Act'), the requirement of comparative hardship of the plaintiff and the defendent needs examination. An issue was, therefore, framed and it was remitted to the lower court for recording of the evidence and giving a finding.3. The lower court, after recording of the evidence, has given the finding that the comparative hardship would be to the tenant-appellant if the premises are got vacated from him because, he would not get alternative premises. The finding is that the plaintiff has got residential premises in which their machines for m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »