Rajasthan Court March 1986 Judgments
Mod Mal Vs. Maheshwari Samaj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN542
Sham Sunder Byas, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's revision directed against an order of the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (1), Jodhpur dated June 1, 1985, whereby his objections relating to the non-executability of the decree were disallowed.2. In order to properly appreciate the contentions raised at the bar, it is necessary to have a brief resume of the relevant facts. The non-petitioner Maheshwari Samaj, Jodhpur (here in after to be referred as 'the landlord' or the decree-holder) instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction against the revision-petitioner (here in after to be referred as 'the tenant on the judgment debtor) in the Court below on August 30, 1977 in respect of the shop in dispute. The only ground on which eviction of the tenant was sought was that he had neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for more than six months. He was, therefore, liable to be evicted on the ground mentioned in Section 13(1)(a) of the Raj...
Tag this Judgment!Manna Lal Vs. Mool Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN480
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Baran, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs and reversing the decree passed by Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 1, Kota.2. Smt. Kesar Bai was the owner and in possession of the suit house described in para 1 of the plaint, which was constructed by her husband Shri Bala Bux. Mst. Ramjanki Bai was the daughter of Mst. Kesar Bai, while Mool Chand and Bhag Chand, plaintiff respondents are the sons of Mst. Ramjanki Bai. Smt. Kesar Bai had no son and, therefore, she bequeathed this house to the plaintiff-respondents, by a registered Will (Ex. 1) dated August 7, 1965, and the plaintiffs came in possession of the suit premises on the death of Smt. Kesar Bai and since then, they have been in possession of the suit premises. It was alleged in the plaint that when the plaintiffs' father had gone to some other village, the defendant Came and illegally occupied two roo...
Tag this Judgment!Sriya and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)114
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The twelve appellants before me have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Dholpur, in Sessions Case No. 21/1979, for offences Under Sections 302, 326, 325, 324, 323, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants Sriya and Rasham have been convicted for the substantive offence of Section 302 IPC and also Under Section 27 of the Arms Act. They have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment including life imprisonment for the offence Under Section 302 or 302 read with Section 149 IPC. A fine of Rs. 200/- was also imposed on each of them and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. At the same time, three persons, namely, Rameshwar, Heta and Mohan Singh were acquitted for all the offences. The twelve appellants have preferred this appeal against their aforesaid conviction.2. The facts leading to the case are that on March 16, 1976, at 3.0 p.m., Gangaram s/o Sunder Lal lodged a First Infor...
Tag this Judgment!Chhoti Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)182
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 21-10-1930 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Alwar whereby he maintained the conviction passed against the accused-petitioner by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Alwar, but he reduced the sentence.2. The accused petitioner is convicted under Section 379 IPC. It was alleged that on 9-10-1976 the accused-petitioner along with three others were taking bullocks of complainant Ram Singh, who was coming from a meeting at that time, he raised a cry of thief. On this a large number of neighbours came and they followed the thieves. The accused-petitioner caught them after chasing. The thieves, who were taking the bullocks, left the bullocks when they saw the witnesses. Six witnesses were produced to support the allegations levelled against the accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner was arrested from the 'Nohra' of Ram Singh complainant is proved by the statement of PW 7.3. The accused-petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Deep Chand Vs. Abdul HussaIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN68
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of District Judge, Bhilwara, confirming the judgment and decree passed by Additional Munsif, Bhilwara according the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for ejectment.2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated, are as follows : Plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for rent and ejectment against the appellant-defendant on several grounds. The suit was contented by the appellant and after framing number of issues and recording the evidence, and trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the tenant had, without the permission of the landlord made such constructions which have materially altered the premises as mentioned in Section 13(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after referred to as the 'Rent Act'). The learned District Judge also found that the defendant had made constructions without the permission of the landlord whic...
Tag this Judgment!Umed Singh and ors. Vs. Chiranji Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN673
Indersen Israni, J.1. This is a Civil Misc. Appeal under Order 43, Rule 1, CPC read with Order 41, Rule 27, CPC against the judgement and decree dated 26-5-1973 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu, camp : Sikar in Civil Appeal No. 19/73 remanding the case and reversing the decree passed by the learned Munsif, Sikar, dated 31-5-1969 in Civil suit No. 23/66 for mandatory and perpetual injunction.2. The plaintiff-appellants filed a suit against the defendants-respondents for mandatory injunction for demolition of alleged encroachment made by the defendants-respondents on public street and for grant of permanent injunction. It was alleged that defendant No. 2 Nagar Parishad, Fatehpur Sekhawati unauthorisedly and illegally leased a particular piece of land for 99 years, in the year 1969 for consideration of Rs. 33l.35p. to defendant No. 1. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs appellants have been using the land in front of their house for last more than 100 years as path way a...
Tag this Judgment!Girdhari Lal Vs. Prem Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN681
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This is Civil Misc. First Appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act read with Section 96 CPC against the judgment of learned District Judge, Jaipur dated 6th September, 1971 by which a probate of Will was granted to the applicant-respondent.2. The applicant-respondent filed an application for grant of probate on 17-1-1966 in the court of District Judge Jaipur in respect of the last Will of late Smt. Jamna w/o Ram Kumar, executed on 1-8-1960 in favour of the respondent. Smt. Jamna died on 30-12-1960. A caveat was entered and in the reply filed on 9-7-1966 it was alleged in para No 2 that no Will was made by Smt. Jamna on 1-8-1960 and alleged that it was forged document. It was also mentioned in para No. 7 of the same that Smt. Jamna had executed a Will dt. 12-12-59 in favour of the appellant which was duly registered and thereafter no Will had been executed by Smt. Jamna. Suraj Narain also filed a reply and took an objection that he is the reversioner ...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.E.B., Vidyut Bhawan Vs. the Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd., New Delh ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1986
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN191
ORDER AGAINST TN 3010 FOR SUPPLY OF ACSR PANTHER CONDUCTOR (.) DEPUTE YOUR FULLY AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR DISCUSSION ON DECEMBER 29, 1982.3. It was followed by another telegram, dated January 3, 1983, thereafter another telegram on January 17, 1983, fixing January 24, 1983, but instead of sending a representative, the petitioner's case is that respondent sent a notice, dated February 22, 1983, through their counsel re-pudiating the contract calling upon to refer all disputes and differences to arbitrators and further informed about nominating Shri S. Rangarajan, Sr. Advocate, Supreme Court, as their arbitrator and requested to nominate the arbitrator by the Board. On March 8, 1983, the petitioner wrote to respondent No. 1 inter alia stating that the delivery schedule for supply needs revision and re-fixation by mutual negotiations and that the reference to arbitration and appointment of Shri S. Rangarajan is premature. It was further mentioned that if the petitioners were not agre...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi NaraIn Yadav Vs. United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN284
Panna Chand Jain, J.1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24th January, 1976, passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in first appeal No. 176 of 1975 by which the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated 21st March, 1975, was modified dismissing the plaintiff's claim for ejectment from the suit premises and decreeing the suit for use and occupation.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the owner of a bungalow known as Kalyan Villa, situated at Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. The said premises was let out by the plaintiff appellant to the British India General Insurance Co., Ltd., for a period of one year at Rs. 350/- per month with effect from 1st July, 1965. In addition to the rent, the defendant was also required to pay house tax amounting to Rs. 21.88P. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for eviction and recovery ...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN610
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. The revision petition No. 456 of 1984 is directed against the orders dated November 22, 1984 and November 23, 1984 in Criminal Case No. 940/84--State of Rajasthan v. Mahendra Singh, and Ors. under Sections 145 and 146, Cr. PC. By order dated November 22,' 1984 the preliminary order was drawn up and notices were ordered to be issued to Shri Mahendra Singh (respondent No. 2), Rajmata Smt. Sushila Kumari (respondent No. 3), and Arvind Singh, the present petitioner (in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 456 of 1984). The preliminary order was drawn up in respect of all the properties left by Maharana Bhagwat Singhji viz. Shambhu Niwas Palace, Fateh Prakash Palace, Darbar Hall and Shiv Niwas Palace. By order dated November 23, 1984, the Station House Officer, Ghanta Ghar, Udaipur was appointed receiver in respect of the ground-floor of Shivniwas Mahal after it was ordered to be attached. Proceedings under Section 145, Cr. PC were initiated on the report of the Statio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »