Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1971Raj244; 1970(3)WLN654
..... , as stated earlier, the cross-examination directed against the plaintiff's witnesses was to elicit information whether there was due attestation of the documents.8. section 68 of the indian evidence act reads as follows :'68. if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at ..... the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.' in case the plaintiff had thought that his case was covered by the proviso to section 68, he would not have examined any attesting witness of the mortgage-deeds. but, he took care to examine attesting witnesses for each document and unluckily for ..... i desire to impress upon those who are called upon to prove the mortgage-deeds to bear in mind the definition of 'attested' as stated in section 3, transfer of property act and provision of section 68 of the evidence act. provisions of both these sections should be strictly observed unless the case squarely comes within the proviso to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1970WLN688
..... , the sentence should be two and a half years rigours imprisonment.13. consequently i allow the appeal in part. while maintaining the conviction of the accused under section 304 part i indian penal code, i hereby reduce the sentence awarded to him to 21 years rigorous imprisonment only. the sentence of fine is unnecessary and it ..... right of private defence or property. he could only use reasonable force to turn out the deceased. therefore, the accused has been rightly convicted of the offence under section 304 part i indian penal code, but in the circumstances the sentence awarded to the accused calls for reduction. learned counsel relied on bachu lal v. emperor air ..... public authorities, they have to be so approached. the observations made by their lordships in kishna's case are almost classic and i may reproduce them. after quoting sections 96, 97, 99 and 100, their lordships observed:the, combined reading of these provisions indicates that a person has a right to defend his own body and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1971Raj241
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for injunction.2. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants who are brothers constructed a 'Parnala' in their house 3 to 4 days before the institution of the suit so as to discharge the rain water as well as filthy water over the plaintiff's 'nohra' which they had no rignt to do. Consequently, it was prayed that the 'parnala' may be closed and an injunction may be issued against the defendant not to discharge water in the plaintiff's 'nohra'. The defendants pleaded in their written statement that the 'nohra' on which the water was discharged from their house through the 'parnala' in question did not belong to the plaintiff and that in any case they had acquired prescriptive right of easement to discharge water through the 'parnala' in question.3. After recording the evidence produced by the parties the learned Civil Judge, Bharatpur held that the defendants had failed to prove the alleged prescriptive right to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1970WLN614
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for injunction.2. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants who are brothers constructed a 'Parnala' in their house 3 to 4 days before the institution of the suit so as to discharge the rain water, as well as filthy water over the plaintiff's 'nohra' they had no right to do. Consequently, it was prayed that the 'parnala' may be closed and an injunction may be issued against the defendant not to discharge water in the plaintiff's 'Nohra'. The defendants pleaded in their Written statement that the 'Nohra' on which the water was discharged from their house through the 'parnala' in question did not belong to the plaintiff and that in any case they had acquired prescriptive right of easement to discharge water through the 'parnala' in question.3. After recording the evidence produced by the parties the learned Civil Judge, Bharatpur held that the defendants had failed to prove the alleged prescriptive right to disc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1970WLN617
..... the plaint should have been returned for presentation to the proper court.9. in view of my decision on the first point that the suit was barred under section 22 of the act, it is not necessary to decide the question whether the voucher amounted to a promissory note and was inadmissible in evidence for having not been stamped in view ..... civil procedure provides inter alia that the plaint shall be rejected in case the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. section 22 of the act clearly provides that no court shall entertain any suit for the recovery of wages in so far as the sum so claimed could have been recovered by an ..... , of the opinion that the claim made by the plaintiff was definitely one for the recovery of wages alleged to be due to him from the defendants. consequently section 22 of the act operates as a complete bar to the enter-tainability of the present suit.7. learned counsel for the appellant has then submitted that since the learned civil judge, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1970WLN658
..... all these facts were sufficient to establish the guilt of murder.23. it is true that presumption permitted to be drawn under illustration (a) to section 114, evidence act has to be read along with the time factor, but in what circumstances articles should be considered to have been recently stollen cannot be described in ..... and public and private bussiness in their relation to the facts of the particular case. it has authoritatively laid down that presumption under illustration (a) to section 114, evidence act, can be extended to a more aggravated offence. the inference of complicity from possession of article connected with a crime applies also to other criminal charges ..... have identified the ornaments without marks of identification as she must have seen them off and on. therefore, this argument is of no substance.22. under section 114, evidence act, 1872, the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened regard being had to the common course of natural .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1970(3)WLN706
..... sheomukh rai. (1913) 18 ind cas 571 (pc) where the provisions of section 37 of act xii of 1887 were similar to the provisions of section 28 of the rajasthan civil courts ordinance. it is further contended that the objections which are now being raised on behalf of the ..... parties and is secular in character. it is like appointment of an heir and the rules relating to ceremonies are not applicable. it is also contended that section 28 of the rajasthan civil courts ordinance does not exclude consideration of custom even where the parties are muhammadan. reliance is placed on muhammad ismail khan v. ..... right to prosecute this appeal and on this ground alone this appeal should be disposed of. in support of his first contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on section 28 of the rajasthan civil courts ordinance, 1950 and urges that all questions regarding succession. inheritance, marriage or caste, or any religious usage or institution amongst .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1971Raj303; 1970(3)WLN724
..... this allegation and decided the case against the plaintiffs on the ground that they had failed to prove the execution of the mortgage deed as required by section 68 of the evidence act. in the memo of appeal before the learned district judge, ajmer the plaintiffs took an objection that the trial court should have given the appellants an ..... 's possession but the defendants altogether denied in their written statement the existence of the deed. it was held that having regard to the provisions of section 66 of the evidence act the case was one in which the plaintiffs could claim to give secondary evidence of the existence and contents of the mortgage deed in suit. it ..... not given notice to the opposite party to produce the mortgage deed, secondary evidence of the same was inadmissible. he also held that as required by section 68 of the evidence act, one of the attesting witnesses to the mortgage deed should have been called for the purpose of proving its execution, and since this has not been .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1971Raj202; 1970(3)WLN697
..... consideration before us.9. as is obvious, the question which directly arises for consideration in this case is whether the present suit ss barred by section 271 of the act? that section reads as follows,--'section 271. suits against board or its officers-- (1) no suit shall be instituted against a board, or against the chairman, vice-chairman, ..... 1934 pc 96 on which reliance was placed by the learned single judge and it was held as follows :'under the general definitions contained in section 3, general clauses act,, 1897, an 'act' might include an illegal omission, but there clearly was no illegal omission in the present case. it is also difficult to see how mere ..... only such cases which are filed for the recovery of damages or compensation.' they finally set out their view as follows,---'the provision of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the act, therefore, can be attracted only when a suit for damages or compensation is brought against the board or officers for the discharge of their .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1972Raj16
..... have come to that the act of demolition was not illegal or unauthorised it follows that no decree should have been passed against either of the defendants. thus it appears that as a result of ..... of the case may require. in the present case the relief for grant of damages has been made against both the defendants on the same allegation that the alleged act of demolition was illegal and unauthorised. the relief is a single one though it has been claimed against more than one defendant, and in view of the conclusion i ..... had not been demolished illegally, and that in any case if the chairman jagdish prasad had done the same illegally, the municipal board was not liable for any such act of jagdish frasad done without its authority.3. after recording the evidence produced by the parties the learned civil judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit by his judgment and .....
Tag this Judgment!