Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-11-1972
Reported in : AIR1972Raj165; 1972()WLN111
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge Sri Ganganagar dated 29-8-68 dismissing his suit for damages for malicious prosecution for offences under Section 42 read with Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. While dismissing the suit the trial court awarded costs of the litigation as also compensatory costs to the tune of Rupees 200/- to each of the two defendants.2. Plaintiff Waryam Singh was an agriculturist who had his agricultural lands in his personal cultivation in Chak No. 26H, Tehsil Karanpur. Waryam Singh also resided there. His case was that lie cultivates his field with the help of a tractor and he had his own tractor No. RJK 4507 to which a trailer or trolley was attached. On 13-8-64 the plaintiff had sent his tractor to Karanpur with its driver for bringing diesel oil as also some Pucka bricks in connection with the const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-23-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Raj7; 1972()WLN623
Joshi, J.1. This regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge. Sirohi, dated 9th September, 1966 decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for declaration that adoption of the appellant Dhanraj by Ami-chand was invalid. The appeal raises two points of law namely. (1) whether the step-mother is competent to give a person in adoption and (2) whether the adult person having no natural parents, can be taken in adoption.2. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in this appeal relevant facts which are not in dispute may be given. Both the parties are Porwal Jains and are the residents of Pindwara in the District of Sirohi formerly Sirohi State. Amichand. the plaintiff took Dhanraj. the defendant in adoption with the consent of his wife Smt. Surajbai on 18th November, 1959 and executed a registered deed evidencing the factum of adoption. At that time Dhanraj was twenty-one years old. He had no natural parents but had a step-mother Smt. Bhuribai with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-04-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Raj13; 1972()WLN709
Kan Singh, J.1. This is an appeal bythe defendants directed against the 'judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Partabgarh (Camp Chittorgarh) end. inter alia, raises the question whether the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 29 of the Raiasthan Public Trusts Act. 1959 (Act No. 42 of 1959), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.2. The suit was filed on 27-8-1962 by the Panch Mahesihwaris of Chittorgarh and it concerns a temple known as Shri Laxmi Narainii's temple situated at Chittorgarh. It was for an injunction requiring the defendants Jagan Nath and Laxmi Lal to hand over certain articles of the temple which were in their custody as Puiaris of the aforesaid temple and further refrain from performing the work of 'Sewa 'Pooia' in the temple.Stated in brief the plaintiffs' case was that the temple belonged to the Maheshwari Community and was being managed through their Panch as. The latter had employed the defendants for performing the 'Sewa Pooia' at the temple an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-21-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Raj141; 1972()WLN931
Kan Singh, J. 1. The second appeal before me is by a tenant and raises two questions: (1) regarding the waiver of a notice for termination of tenancy and the consequent subsistence of the contractual tenancy; and (2) about the bona fide personal necessity of the landlord to get possession of the premises.2. Kailash Prasad, plaintiff-respondent, brought a suit for ejectment against the defendant-tenant on the basis of personal necessity and default in payment of rent. The landlord had served a notice for the termination of the tenancy on 23-4-1967 intimating the tenant that the tenancy shall stand terminated from 31-5-1967, Apart from this it was averred by the landlord that the defendant-tenant had not paid him rent for the period 1-7-1967 to 31-1-1968 and he was therefore, liable to be evicted on this ground as well. The receipt of notice for termination of the tenancy was admitted by the defendant-tenant, but he contended that the notice had been waived by the landlord by his accepti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-31-1972
Reported in : AIR1972Raj300; 1972()WLN413
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner Abdul Gani has prayed that an appropriate writ, direction or order may be issued to the Municipal Board, Banner directing the latter not to stop the petitioner from carrying on business of selling meat in a shop taken on rent by him in the Post Office lane, Barmer, on 7-4-1972. The petitioner's case is that he applied to the Administrator, Municipal Board, Banner on 10-4-1972 for granting him a licence to open a meat shop in the Sardar Building, but the Administrator wrongly refused to grant a licence on the ground that it was not in the interest of public health and public convenience to allow the petitioner to carry on business of selling meat in the shop in question. It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that in spite of the permission sought for having been refused the petitioner started selling meat in that shop and consequently the Municipal Board took...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-31-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Raj153; 1972()WLN901
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J.1. Balumal and Suresh Kumar have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jodhpur, dated 1st of May, 1972, whereby a preliminary objection of the petitioners to challenge the jurisdiction of that Court to entertain the prayer of the arbitrators to make their award the rule of the Court was rejected.2. The facts giving rise to this litigation are, in a nutshell, as follows:Petitioners entered into a partnership agreement with respondent No. 3 Dr. Khetlakhani in an agricultural pursuit and it is alleged that as a result of that partnership certain lands in village Manaklao were purchased by the partners and some machinery, including the pumping set, was installed on the well in the said lands. The partners also took loan from the bank and made certain constructions on the lands for the purpose of carrying on their agricultural operations. After some time, serious controversies arose between the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-18-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Raj208; 1972()WLN784
J.P. Jain, J.1. This is a second appeal by defendant Ramprasad against whom a decree for redemption on payment of Rs. 450/- has been passed by the Munsif Aimer District. Aimer and which has been upheld by the Civil Judge. Aimer 2. The facts leading to this appeal may be summarised as follows:--There is a pucka Patti Posh shop facing north situate at village Pisangan in the district of Aimer. Deceased Rameshwarlal alleged that the said shop belonged to one Murlidhar son of Shri Hanotram Banear of Pisangan and it was martgaged by him with possession with Shri Harkaran on Bhadwa Sudi 5. Samwat year 1958 for securing a loan of Rs. 450/-% As disclosed by the deceased Rameshwarlal in the plaint, the mortgage amount was not to bear any interest and the mortgage was a usufructuary mortgage. It wag further alleged that Murlidhar died and his son Shrikishan by a registered sale deed dated 28-9-1953 transferred his rights to the plaintiff (deceased Remeshwarlal). According to the allegation in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-28-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Raj1; 1972()WLN571
ORDER1. This is a reference by one of us arising out of a revision application filed by the defendant against an order of Munsif City, Jodhpur, holding that he has jurisdiction to try the suit.2. By notifications dated 2-6-1950and 19-9-1950 there are two courts ofMunsifs at Jodhpur -- Court of MunsifCity and Court of Munsif District. Theirjurisdictions are as follows :--'Court of Munsif City ..... Jodhpur City Court of Munsif District .....Jodhpur Sub-Division (excluding Jodh-pur City and Bilara Tehsil).'It is not disputed that by Jodhpur City is meant the territorial limits of the Jodhpur Municipality.3. The subject-matter of the present suit is a house situated in Maha-znandir area. In the year 1950 it was outside the municipal limits of Jodhpur. When the present suit was instituted Mahamandir had been included in Jodhpur City.4. The trial Court has held that as the area is now included in Jod'hpur City, the Court of Munsif City has jurisdiction to try the present suit,5. On behalf o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-05-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Raj63
J.P. Jain, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the defendant, Mool Chand, against whom a decree for Rs. 1,209/- as arrears of rent and for ejectment from the suit premises was passed by the Civil Judge, Jaipur City and upheld in appeal by the District Judge, Jaipur City. 2. Mool Chand defendant is the owner of the house F-150 in residency area of the C-scheme. Jaipur. He mortgaged this house with possession by a registered mortgage deed dated 12-9-1956 with Prasad Dass Banerjee and his brother Narain Dass Banerjee for a sum of Rs. 15999/-. By a separate document of the same date Mool Chand was accepted as a tenant on a portion of the said house. The defendant thus continued to be in possession of that part of the house. A rent note (Ex. 1) was executed and the mortgagor agreed to pay Rs. 93/- p.m. as rent for the said part of the house. Mool Chand paid the rent for two months, upto 12-11-1956. By the rent note Ex. 1 the period of tenancy was fixed for a Period of one year. It was also agr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-25-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Raj201; 1972()WLN908
Beri, J.1. On the basis of a promissory note dated 6-6-1963 Seth Budh Singh Bapna instituted a suit against Sahibzada Abdul Bais Khan of Tonk. During the pendency of the suit on 30-5-64 the plaintiff moved two applications. One was for attaching before judgment the Khandan allowance payable to the defendant and the other was to restrain the defendant from receiving the said allowance from the Collector. Tonk. and the Collector from disbursing it. The learned Civil Judge passed an ex parte order restraining the defendant from receiving and the Collector from disbursing the amount to the extent of Rs. 60,000/-. Let us recall the exact words of the restraint order because its disobedience is an important question for decision.^^cuke %&lkgc; tknk vCnqyjfgl [kka oYn vCnqYyk [kka lkfdu VkSad A gjxk fd oknh dh vkSj ls nj[okLr o gYQ&ukekis;'k gqvk gS fd vkius rU[kkg dh jde djhc 60]000 :i;k dysDVjh o Vstjh VkSadls olwy dj jgs gks vr% vkidh bl gqDe ls enukbZ vkjth }kjk ikcUn fd;k tkrk gS fdvki o...
Tag this Judgment!