Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-09-1973
Reported in : [1975]99ITR354(Raj); 1973()WLN14
J.P. Jain, J. 1. These are two references, one under the Wealth-tax Act and the other under the Gift-tax Act. The assessee in both the cases is the same and the basic question involved in both the references is common. We, therefore, propose to decide them by one common judgment.2. The facts leading to the wealth-tax reference are as follows: Thakur Gopalsingh was a jagirdar in the erstwhile State of Udaipur. His jagir was resumed in 1954 under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. Compensation in respect of the jagir was awarded to the jagirdar. The Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (Act No. XXVII of 1957), came into force on the first day of April, 1957. The matter relates to the wealth-tax assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59. The valuation dates for each year are September 30, 1956, and September 30, 1957, respectively. The compensation awarded in lieu of the jagir was not declared in the return of net wealth by the assessee and it was contended by him...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-09-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Raj4; 1973()WLN424
Jain J.1. This appeal by the defendant State arises out of the original Civil Suit No. 16/62, instituted by the respondent Raghunath Singh, for the recovery of Rs. 70,151.32 as damages for breach of contract and which has been partly decreed by the Senior Civil Judge No. 2 Jaipur City, on 28-2-1966.2. Briefly put, the plaintiff Raghunath Singh's case is that he was in anted a minor mineral lease for lime-stone of the mines, known as Dawa and Seelva in Tehsil Nokha. District Bikaner. Rajasthan, consisting of an area of 40 acres for a period of five years on an yearly dead rent of Rs. 6195/- on the terms and conditions given under the Raiasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955. This mining lease was granted by the Director of Mines and Geology Government of Rajasthan. Udaipur. The sanction was conveyed to the plaintiff by the Assistant Mining Engineer, Bikaner. by his letter, dated 4-7-1957 (Ex. 26). The Deputy Director (Administration) of Mines and Geology also communicated this fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-11-1973
Reported in : AIR1973Raj322; 1973()WLN448
Kan Singh, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction as well as mesne profits,2. The suit was filed by the Managing Committee of the Shahi Jama Masjid, Merta City. The mosque known as the Shahi Jama Masjid is said to have been constructed by the Muslim Emperors of Delhi. It is a massive building. It has a solid platform and comprises heavy arches, domes and lofty minars. It is a protected ancient monument and is tinder the supervision of the Archaeological Department According to the plaintiff, there are a large number of shops appurtenant to the mosque.3. The subject-matter of the litigation is a small strip of open land 51/2 X 41/2 situated on the back side of the mosque towards the south of the western corner of the main building. It is sandwiched between two shops. According to the plaintiff, the strip of land in question was in the ownership and possession of the Shahi Jama Masjid and the Management Committee had been ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-16-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Raj1; 1973()WLN210
Kan Singh, J. 1. The appeal raises a short question whether before filing a suit against the Gram Panchayat a notice was necessary to the Panchayat under Section 79(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.2. Learned counsel for the appellant admits that no notice was given by the plaintiff-appellant to the Gram Panchayat. He contends that Sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the Act was inapplicable. He takes the stand that the Panchayat had no authority to treat the plaintiff's land as belonging to it and then pass an order for removal of the so-called encroachment. The relevant facts as stated in the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court were briefly these: Plaintiff claims to have a piece of land situated in village Thanvla. He started the construction of a house over thisland which was abutting on a public road. The public of village Thanvla made a report before the Gram Panchayat about the construction alleging that there was an encroachment by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-20-1973
Reported in : AIR1973Raj244; 1973()WLN52
Beri, J.1. This appeal and other 285 appeals detailed in Schedule 'A' under Section 18 of the Raiasthan High Court Ordinance are directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this court dated 18-4-1972 wherebv he dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants holding that they never acquired any khatedari rights in the agricultural holdings in dispute.2. The circumstances which it is necessary to notice for the disposal of these appeals briefly stated are these: In the erstwhile State of Bikaner there were two Jagirs called Chhattargarh and Satta-sar. Under the Raiasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act (Act VI of 1952) these Jagirs werp resumed on 1-7-1954 and 15-8-1954 respectively. It is alleged by the petitioners-appellants that prior to the resumption the Jaeirdars had admitted them as tenants in their respective agricultural holdings on the rates of rent prevailing in the former State of Bikaner. After resumption the anppliants contend that the State of Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-20-1973
Reported in : AIR1973Raj254; 1973()WLN107
Beri, J.1. These appeals are directed against a iudgment of the learned Single Judge dated July 27, 1972, but. it is based on the reasons given in the iudgment dated April 18. 1972 in 492 writ petitions, relating to lands occupied by persons in Raiasthan Canal Area.2. The appellants' case is that the Jagirdar of Sattasar sranted in 1948. large chunks of land to the appellants and issued 'sanads' to them. The Sattasar Jaeir was resumed under the Raiasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act (Act VI of 1952] on August 15. 1954. The appellants Paid all amounts due against them by wav of land revenue on the said lands from the vears 1948 to 1955 and they became Khatedar. tenants within the meaning of the word in the Bikaner State Tenancv Act. The appellants also contend that the revenue or rent have been realised from them for the period from 1953 to 1962.3. On October 15, 1955, the Raiasthan Tenancy Act. 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Tenancv Act') came into force. Under Section 15 t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-09-1973
Reported in : AIR1973Raj219; 1973()WLN200
Joshi, J.1. This appeal has come up before us for orders on the three applications under Order 22 Rule 4. Order 22, Rule 9 C.P.C. and Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act respectively in connection with determination of the question as to whe-ther the appeal has abated or not.2. The facts relevant for the determination of the points raised before us are as follows: Respondent Sohanraj died on 1st January 1972. His legal representatives were not brought on the record in time. An application was made on behalf of the appellant for implead-ing legal representatives of the deceased respondent Sohanraj on 24th October, 1972. This application was obviously not within the prescribed tune of limitation. The delay in filing application was sought to be explained on the ground that the appellant learnt about the death of the deceased Sohanraj for the first time when he received a letter dated 3rd October, 1972 from his advocate Shri L. R. Mehta from Jodhpur wherein he informed that Sohanraj wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-05-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Raj21; 1973()WLN657
ORDERThe petition is dismissed. In view of the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.'It is in these circumstances that the question falls to be considered whether the husband was entitled to come in appeal when obviously the wife's petition has failed. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the husband is affected adversely by the decision of the learned District Judge that the parties were still continuing as husband and wife and this judgment would stand against the husband if at all he wants to rehabilitate himself in married life by taking another companion.6. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband, on the other hand, stresses that it is the ultimate result of the case that should govern the question of appeal ability of the order at the instance of a party in whose favour the order is passed and not the decision on any particular issue that may have arisen in the case. Learned counsel for the respondent maintains that the decision of any i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-29-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Raj124; 1973()WLN116
Sohan Nath Modi, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for malicious prosecution.2. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs' case as narrated in the plaint is like this:3. On 26-12-1956 the defendant-respondent filed a complaint under Section 41/44 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act. 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act, against the plaintiffs in the Court of the City Magistrate, Aimer, allegine therein that plaintiff No. 1 Briilal was the landlord of the defendant, that plaintiff No. 2 Jagmohan was the rent collecting agent of plaintiff No. 1 and that on 29-11-1956 the plaintiffs had cut off electric connection of the premises occupied by the defendant and were therefore liable to prosecution. The complaint wag tried by the First Class Magistrate, Ajmer, who acquitted plaintiff No. 2 but convicted plaintiff No. 1 under Section 41/44 of the Act and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 100/-. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aimer, acquitted plaintiff No. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-16-1973
Reported in : 1973(6)WLN609
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. Messrs Garg Book Co., Jaipur, hereinafter called 'the assessee') sold to the University of Rajasthan and the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Printed roll lists during the assessment period from 1.4.61 to 31.3.62 and urged before the Sales Tax Officer that what the assessee sold was 'book' and therefore it was exempt trom payment of tax under Section 4 read with entry 10 of the Schedule to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The Sales Tax Officer negatived the contention. The assessese, however, succeeded before the Appellate Authority but failed before the Board of Revenue. A request for reference was made to the Board of Revenue, but the Board declined it. The assesses therefore moved this Court and obtained a direction for the Board of Revenue to refer the following question for answer:Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case. The 'Roll Registers' of the University of Rajasthan and the Board of Secondary Educat...
Tag this Judgment!