Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-09-1975
Reported in : 1975CriLJ968; 1975()WLN1
S.N. Modi, J1. The two appellants. Bakhtawar Singh and Karnailsingh along with their fathers, Narsingh and Gurbux-singh respectively were tried for offences under Sections 302 and 307, Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar acquitted Narsingh and Gurbux Singh and convicted the appellants for ant offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code for attempt to murder Jaggasingh and Balbirsingh by causing injuries to them by 303 rifles and sentenced each one of them to suffer imprisonment for life, Jaggasingh succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The appellants were further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. The appellants have come-up in appeal against their convictions and sentences.2. The incident relating to this, case took place at village Khaliwala, district Ganganagar, on 23-3-1972 at about p.m. in killa No. 5 of the field belonging t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-05-1975
Reported in : AIR1976Raj108; 1975()WLN731
J.P. Jain, J. 1. The legal representatives of Shri Kishan original plaintiff have filed this appeal against the appellate decree dated August 20, 1974 of the Additional District Judge, Udaipur, affirming the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Udaipur, dated 12-4-67 passed in Civil Suit No. 80/1964.2. There is some property known as 'Talia' in Mouza Fatehnagar Tehsil Mavli. This property has been shown in the map Ex. 2 attached to the plaint. Shri Kishan plaintiff alleged that the property shown in pink colour towards the south of the 'Talia' had been constructed by him and a portion of the 'Talia' towards the north shown bounded by dotted red lines is lying vacant. But according to him the foundation in that part of the land has been dug and filled up to the plinth level. The land thus shown within red dotted lines, is the land in question. It measures approximately East-West 52' and 30' North-South. The plaintiff stated that he is the owner of the entire land and has been in poss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-26-1975
Reported in : AIR1976Raj56; 1975()WLN631
V.P. Tyagi, J. 1. This is defendant's first appeal against the judgment and the decree of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City dated 21st September, 1974.2. There is a building situate on the Mirza Ismail Road, Jaipur known as Bhagwat Bhawan. A part of this building was rented out to defendant M/s. General Auto Agencies for the rent of Rs. 425 per month. According to the plaintiff this part of the building was sold by the owners of the building to the plaintiff on 7th November, 1963, for Rs. 48,499, Shri Mangilal the proprietor of the building who sold it to the plaintiff wrote to the defendant on 7th December, 1968 that the premises had been purchased by the plaintiff, and, therefore, rent may henceforth be paid to the plaintiff. This notice was received by the defendant firm on 13th December, 1968 and it is alleged that thereafter the defendant started paying rent at the rate of Rs. 425 per month to the plaintiff and continued to pay it till February, 1969. It app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-17-1975
Reported in : AIR1976Raj166; 1975()WLN700
ORDERD.P. Gupta, J.1. This is a writ petition in the matter of grant of temporary stage carriage permits on Ajmer-Sarwar via Srinagar, Ramsar, Debrela, Barada route (hereinafter referred to as 'the route') and it arises in the following circumstances:--Lalchand, respondent No. 2, was granted a temporary permit on the route by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region, Jaipur (hereinafter called 'the R. T. A.') on June 24, 1975 and a permit was actually issued to him in pursuance of the aforesaid grant on July 3, 1975. But probably he realised that the grant of the aforesaid temporary permit in his favour was not proper and so he surrendered the aforesaid temporary permit granted to him. On July 7, 1975 Lalchand submitted another application for grant of a temporary permit on the route, in which the purpose for which the permit was required was mentioned as 'under Section 62 (1) (c) of M. V. Act to meet particular temp, need'. An application for grant of a temporary permit on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-08-1975
Reported in : AIR1976Raj40; 1975()WLN831
Kalyan Dutta, J. 1. This second appeal to directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, dated 8th July, 1966 by which the two appeals NOS. 25 of 1962 and 131 of 1962, filed by the defendants against the preliminary decree and the final decree passed in a suit for redemption by the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur, were dismissed with costs and the cross-objections filed fey Sardar Mal and has son Sudan Mal were partly accepted and the amount of mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 60 p.m. with effect from the date of final decree till the date of tine judgment of the learned District Judge, was added in the decree as payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the suit for redemption, out of which this appeal arises, may be described as follows :-- 3. Sardar Mal and his son Surjan Mal filed a suit for redemption of a shop in dispute situated in Sire Bazar. Jodhpur, on the basis of a mortgage-deed (Ex. 25) executed by M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-09-1975
Reported in : AIR1975Raj236; 1975()WLN154
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, dated June 3, 1972, and it arises out of the following circumstances:The plaintiffs filed a suit for Rupees 10,000/- as principal advanced on pronotes on different dates to the defendant firm Mohan Brothers. Station Road, Jodhpur, and Rs. 1,425/- as interest thereon. The pronotes were admitted by the defendants, but certain legal pleas were raised by the defendants, which I need not mention here, as the controversy in this appeal is limited only on the question of the interest awarded to the appellant for the period prior to the institution of the suit and also interest pendente lite. During the course of the arguments before the learned Judge it appears that one of the plaintiffs Shri Utsavlal. who is now the sole appellant in this Court, his father Ram Gopal having died during the pendency of the appeal, gave in writing to the learned Judge that he wou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-13-1975
Reported in : 1975(8)WLN58
Kansingh, J.1. This a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution challenging the validity of certain acquisition proceedings taken under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, herein after to be referred as 'the Act'.2. The petitioner is a Cooperative Society, hereinafter to be referred 'the Society'. On 12.5.60, the Government bad published a notification in the Rajasthan Rajpatra in exercise of their powers under Section 4 of the Act. The notification was as follows:Hkkx 1v jktLFkku jkT; iFk twu 9]1960&&&&&&&LFkkuh; LFkkir 'kklu l foHkkxfoKfIr;kWt;iqj ebZ 13 1960la[;k ,Q 2117 ,l-,p-th@1959 pwfd jkTkLFkku ljdkj dks ,slk izrhr gksrk gS Afd ljdkj }kjk lkoZtfud O;; ij ,d lkoZtfud dk;Z vFkkZr t;iqj uxj fodkl ;kstukc) gsrq ekStk ekSTkiqjk o pd lqn'kZuiqjk es eqlh;r LVsfM;e U;w gkbZ dksVZ fcfYMax ds fy, Hkwfe ds fy, tkus dh vko;'drk gksus dh laHkkouk gS vr% blds }kjk foKfIr fd;k tkrk gS AfuEu nf'kZr LFkku dh Hkwfe dks mi;qZDr dk;Z ds fy, ysus dh laHkkouk gS A;g foKfIr jkTkLFkku ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-26-1975
Reported in : AIR1976Raj65; 1975()WLN423
J.P. Jain, J.1. This second appeal was filed against Chand Mohammed. Chand Mohammed had died during the pendency of the first appeal in the lower appellate Court and his legal representatives had been brought on record. By mistake the cause title in the lower appellate Court was not amended and the decree-sheet drawn mentioned the name of Chand Mohammed as appellant instead of his legal representatives. This error resulted into filing the appeal by Mr. H.M. Parikh against Chand Mohammed, a dead person. Notice of this appeal was received by Seikh Mohammed son of the deceased Chand Mohammed, but it was stated that Chand Mohammed had died. On 26-3-1974 when the case was fixed in the office for service Mr. Parikh came to know of this fact. After inquiry from his client he filed an application on 27-3-1974 for deleting the name of Chand Mohammed and for impleading the names of his legal representatives as respondents in the appeal. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-11-1975
Reported in : 1975(8)WLN508
P.D. Kudal, J.1. Accused-appellant Dharma has filed this appeal from Tail against the judgment dated 31st July, 1971 by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra. The accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 302, IPC, and sentenced to imprisonment for life, and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment, for six months. The accused-appellant was also convicted under Section 323, IPC, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story is that the accused-appellant Dharma married to Mst. Nenu daughter of Chaitan. Chaitan died and was survived by his widow Mst Sua. The marriage of Mst. Nenu with Dharma was performed on the 'Akha Teej' of Smt. 2023, Ganesh, the younger brother of Met. Nenu was married to the daughter of Boda, who is closely related to Dharma. After residing for some time, with Dharma Mst. Nenu came back to her mother, and later o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-28-1975
Reported in : AIR1976Raj20; 1975()WLN814
J.P. Jain, J. 1. Civil Suit No. 11 of 1959 filed by Prabhu Narain respondent No. 1 has been decreed by the Civil Judge. Jaipur City, and upheld by the Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, (Civil Appeal No. 48/1970). The first and the second defendants have come in second appeal in this court.2. On 3-1-59 Prabhu Narain instituted the suit under appeal in the court of Civil Judge, Jaipur City, against Nand Kishore. his father Radha Vallabh and four others who are tenants in the suit property. The suit property is a haveli facing North situate in Surajpole Bazar, Chowkari Topkhana Hazuri. Jaipur. This house originally belonged to one Har Bux who died on 23-9-1949. One Govind Nara-in obtained a decree against Prabhu Narain as legal representative of Har Bux. He got the suit haveli attached in that decree. A claim was put up by Nand Kishore, who was at that time minor, through his father, Radha Vallabh under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C. It was claimed that the suit property was i...
Tag this Judgment!