Rajasthan Court September 2007 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.
Pratap Ram and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN249
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. The petitioners have challenged the mutation order dt. 17.02.1964 by preferring appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. The appeal was allowed vide order dt. 04.06.2004. The respondent Kishana Rampreferred revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed by the Board of Revenue vide order dt. 27.07.2007 on the ground that since there is regular suit pending between the parties, therefore, the first appellate Court should not have set aside the mutation order passed long ago.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the mutation entries were absolutely fabricated as it is apparent from the revenue record itself. It is submitted that in any case, the respondent could not have got the entries in his name as he is not successor of Lalaram. It is submitted that even if the Board of Revenue was of the view that no entry should have been changed during the pendency of the...
Ladu Lal and anr. Vs. Smt. Jasoda Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN319
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellants-tenants are aggrieved against the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below dt. 30.03.1994 and 02.06.2001. The trial Court decreed the suit for eviction and tenant's appeal was dismissed by Appellate Court. Hence, this second appeal.3. Brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by Banshilal and Motilal S/o of Kalu Ram for eviction of their tenants. In the suit Motilal S/o Kalu Ram was impleaded as party plaintiff and Balmukand S/o Motilal was also impleaded as party plaintiff No. 3. The two Courts below concurrently recorded finding of facts in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit for eviction of the tenants-appellants.4. According to learned Counsel for the appellants, the suit has been filed by impleading Balmukund as party whereas he was not landlord and, therefore, the suit itself should have been dismissed because of mis-joinder of party as well as on the ground that suit for eviction o...
Sinnalal Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN345
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the rejection of his appeal by the District Judge, Pali preferred under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act of 1964') which was preferred against the orders of Estate Officer dt. 25.03.1987 and 24.11.1987 by which the Estate Officer passed the order for taking possession of the premises in dispute and thereafter, passed the order for recovery of mesne profits amounting to Rs.50,623/-.3. Brief facts of the case are that a shop No.20 along with god own was allotted to firm Kesrimal Sinnalal of Sumerpur. Said shop was damaged in a fire which broke on 08.05.1981. Respondent Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (KUMS) initiated proceedings under Section 4 of the Act of 1964 for eviction of the said firm Kesrimal Sinnalal on the ground of default in payment of rent as according to respondent KUMS, the said firm did not pay the rent fro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›