Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj84
Modi, J.1. In this review application the question that has arisen for our consideration is whether the court-fee paid thereon by the petitioners is sufficient. The judgment from which the review application has been preferred was pronounced by a Bench of this Court on the 9th October 1952. The review application was filed on 3rd January 1953. There is, therefore, no dispute that the review application was filed within 90 days of the Judgment. The appeal was valued by the petitioners for purposes of court-fee at Rs. 13,569/87- and the present review application, has been valued at the same figure. The Stamp Reporter has reported that the court-fee of Rs. 108/- paid by the petitioners is insufficient and that they should have paid one-half of the sum of Rs. 595/- on the review application inasmuch as the court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal, if it should have been filed at the time the review application came to be made, would be a sum of Rs. 595/-. It may be pointed out that a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1953Raj204
Ranawat, J. 1. In view of the importance of the questions involved herein, a Division Bench of this Court has referred this case to a larger Bench of this Court for decision. 2. On 24-3-1947 an ex parte decree was obtained by Radheyshiam and Radha Kishan against the firm of Sawai Modi Basdeo Prasad and Ramprasad of Dholpur for Rs. 2498/6/-plus costs in the court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur city. The defrndants at that time were the subjects of the then Dholpur State. The suit was entertained in the court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur, as the cause of action arose within the limits of the jurisdiction of that court. The defendants did not enter appearance and the proceedings against them were taken ex parte. At that time the Jaipur State and the Dholpur State were two different Indian States and for the purposes of execution the decrees of the courts of one Statewere considered to be decrees of the courts of a foreign State in the other. As the decree inthis case was a personal decree passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1953Raj137
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. The following point has been referred to this Bench for decision;'Whether where it is open to a party to raise a ground of appeal under Section 105, Civil P. C. from the final decree or order with respect to any order which has been passed during the pendency of the case, it should be held that an appeal from that order lies to the High Court in the meaning of the term 'in which no appeal lies thereto' appearing in Section 115, Civil P. C.'2. The facts, which have led to this reference, may be very briefly set out. There was ft suit in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur City, in which the defendant, who is the applicant in revision, raised the plea that the custom of pre-emption being contrary to the provisions of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India, should not be given effect to by the Courts. The Additional Civil Judge heard arguments and decided the issue against the defendant and ordered the suit to proceed. Thereupon, the defendant came in r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1955CriLJ835
ORDERWanchoo, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Motia, Gepla and Achalia of offences Under Sections 302 and 318, IPC Motia and Gepla have been served, and the appeal is, therefore, being heard against them. Achalia has not been found yet, and the appeal against him will remain pending.2. The prosecution story was briefly this : Harka deceased, his wife Mst. Chakhu also deceased, and his daughter Jammu also deceased used to live in village Bakra. Siremal P.W. 8 is a neighbour of Harka, his house being 40 paces away. He heard the cries of Mst. Rambha, mother of Harka deceased, on the morning of 8-12-1948. Mst. Rambha is blind, and was told by a child in the morning that HarTia, was lying dead, and therefore raised an alarm. Siremal ,t went to Harka's house accompanied l5y Kistoorchand, and saw the dead bodies of .Harkha, his wife Chakhu and his daughter Jammu lying there in the Pol. They, therefore, sent information to the police at Jalore. Sub-Inspector Huka...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj162
Modi, J.1. These are two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, and arise out of the same facts.2. The petitioners are residents of Bhinmal and. describe themselves as citizens, voters and taxpayers in that town. The case of the petitioners is that opposite parties Nos. 2 to 9, who are members of the Municipal Board of Bhinmal and who will hereinafter be referred to as the Board, have been realising from the petitioners and others certain taxes which are mentioned in the schedule appended to their petition and which may briefly be described as (1) octroi on certain articles e. g., cloth, grain, ghee, sugar and some others, if and when brought into the town of Bhinmal, and (2) a Kharda lag which is a sort of house-tax, without any authority of law, and that such action on the part of the Board is unauthorised and illegal. The petitioners further alleged that the boundary limits of the Bhinmal Municipality had not been denned under any law at all. The petitioners therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj12
Modi, J. 1. This is an application by Chelaram,under Article 223 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, directionor order against the State of Rajasthan and the Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan, opposite parties 1 and 2, and arises under the following circumstances. 2. The petitioner Chelarara occupied the permanent post of Prosecuting Inspector in the police department of the former State of Bikaner in 1949, and was attached as such to theCourt of the City Magistrate, Bikancr. On 5.3.49, it having been reported against him that he had demanded a bribe of Rs. 15/- from one Pannalcl Kothari who was a prosecution witness in a certain criminal case pending in the Court of the City Magistrate, Bikaner, the InspectorGeneral of Police asked the Deputy Inspector General, of Police to make an inquiry into the matter. It is said that on 7-3-49, after holding an inquiry, the latter submitted a report. The gist of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1953CriLJ1788
ORDERNigam, J.C.1. Madholal filed a complaint under Section 145, Criminal P.C., before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Beawar. He alleged that he was in possession of 'nohra' No. 676 situated in Diggi Chunpachan, Beawar, and that at 3.30 p.m. on 1.2.1950, the date of the application, the two opposite parties entered the 'nohra' illegally and forcibly and were not leaving it despite requests and protests. The learned Magistrate forwarded the application for report to the Station Officer, Beawar. In they order he stated that the applicant told him that the opposite parties 'are breaking open the locks and damaging his property'. As directed, the Station Officer reported the next day and on the basis of that report the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter in the following words:The S.O. Beawar, after enquiring reports that there is likelihood of a breach of the peace. Accordingly, I am convinced that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning house (nohra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj170
Modi, J. 1. The only question which we are called upon to decide at this stage is one of court-fees. We give below a few facts out of which the present question has arisen. 2. The appellants were defendants in the trial Court. The plaintiffs-respondents are sons of the respondent Bakhtawarlal who was impleaded as defendant No. 5 in the suit. The plaintiffs' case was that their father Bakhtawarlal & the plaintiffs were members of a joint Hindu family, and that Bakhtawarlal sold certain property to defendants Nos. 1 to 4, namely, Sukhlal, Hukmichand, Kastoorchand and Gahrilal, by a sale-deed dated 10-6-1944, for a sum of Rs. 800/-, and that the said property was ancestral property of the family and had been sold to the vendees above-named without the consent of the plaintiffs and without any family necessity. The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed that the sale-deed executed by Bakhtawarlal in favour of the vendees be cancelled. The plaintiffs valued their suit at Rs. 6000/- for purposes of j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj145
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution by Madan Mohan praying for the issue of a writ of certioran or other appropriate writ or order in connection with the decision of an election petition against the applicant by the Election Tribunal at Bikaner. 2. The facts, which have led to this application, are these: 3. General elections were held in Rajasthan in January 1952 for the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. The applicant way a candidate in that election from the Parbatsar (assembly) constituency, and was declared elected after contest. On 9-6-1952, Bankatlal, opposite party, presented an election petition to the Election Commissioner against the election of the applicant. This petition was assigned by the Election Commission to the Tribunal at Bikaner, which consisted of Shri M.P. Asthana as Chairman, and Shri M.C. Bhandari and Shri Goverdhandas T. Gajria as members. Shri Badri Prasad, Kunwar Dalipsingh, Thakur Karansingh and Thakur Shiv Sing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj153
ORDERModi, J. 1. This is an appeal by the accused Chhagan Singh who has been convicted of offences under Section 307, Penal Code, and Section 19, Arms Act. He has been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 307, I. P. C., and to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 19, Arms Act. 2. The case for the prosecution is briefly as follows: On 27-2-52, Malusingh, Head Constable attached to the police station Ratannagar, came to knew that the dacoits Mohania, Dhannesingh and Chhagansingh were in the village Raipuria and were expected to stay there during the night. It is said That these persons were wanted by the police in connection with several crimes. Malusingh went on the same night to the Superintendent of Police, Churu, Shri Tarachand (P. W. 1) who immediately on being informed organised a raid party to go to Raipuria. The police party led by the Superintendent ...
Tag this Judgment!