Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1951Raj67
Nawalkishore, J.1. This is a pltf's appeal against the judgment of the learned Dist J., Jodhpur, holding that the terms of surety bond did not make the surety liable in the execution proceedings. The facts relating to this case are these:2. Laxmichand applt instituted a suit against Rao Raja Gordhansingh for the recovery of Rs. 2,249/- in the Ct of Civil Judge, Jodhpur, & on 23-2-1949 applied for the issue of a warrant of arrest before judgment against the deft under Order 38, Rule 1, C. P. C. On 28-2-1949, a warrant was ordered to be issued accordingly & Gokal Prasad, resp, stood surety & executed a bond as follows:^^eqdnek eqUntkZ vucku esa eqnk;ys ds cj f[kykQgLc vkMZj 38 :y 1 tkjh gqvk vkSj tekur nsus dk gqDe btykl okyk ls gwvk bl fy;seSa eqlEeh xksdy izlkn oYn f'koykyth y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1953Raj12
ORDERRanawat, J. 1. The Sessions Judge, Jaipur, has made this reference under Section 438 Cr.P.C. recommending that the order of the Special Magistrate, dated 18-8-50, by which he held that the accused can be tried for an offence under Section 161, I.P.C., even though he was not extradited for that offence, be set aside, 2. The accused Dr. Ram Babu Saksena belonged to U.P. and was a member of the U.P. Civil Service. He was appointed the Administrator of the then Tonk State on the 21st January 1948, but upon recognition by the Ministry of States, Government of India, of Nawab Ismail Ali Khan, hereinafter referred to as the Nawab, as the Ruler of the Tonk State, he was appointed the Prime Minister and Vice-President of the Tonk State Council on the 14th of February 1948. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the Nawab desired to take an amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- from the State Treasury of the Tonk State for his personal expenditure and requested the accused to assist him in obtaining th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1951Raj108
1. The applt Jahangir Khan filed a suit in the Ct of City Munsif, Udaipur, against Karamdat Khan & the State Council Udaipur for an injunction restraining the defts from dispossessing the pltf from a house situated near Surajpol in the town of Udaipur. During the pendency of the suit Karamdat Khan executed a sale deed in favour of Mohan Lal resp & he died thereafter. The pltf Jahangir Khan alleging that there was no other legal representative of the deceased excepting his ownself got the name of Karamdat Khan struck off from the records without any substitute. On 6-12-1947, Mohan Lal filed an appln under Order 22 Rule 10, C. P. C, for the substitution of his name in place of that of Karamdat Khan on the ground that the property in dispute had been assigned to him by Karamdat Khan. The learned Munsiff however on the same day rejected the appln on the ground that Mohan Lal was not the heir of Karamdat Khan & his name could not be substituted in place of that of the deceased against the w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1951Raj123
Datt, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment, dated 30-6-1949, of the Ses. J. Baran sentencing the appellant Mt. Motia to 3 years' R. I. under Section 304 and 3 years under Section 317, Penal Code, both the sentences to run concurrently. Mt Motia is the widow of one Bhanwaria Carpenter & was living with her mother in the village of Khajurna situated within the jurisdiction of the Police Station at Anta. She was challaned under Sections 302 & 318, Penal Code, & was committed to Sessions, charged under the same offences by the Mag. I class, Mangrol. The learned Ses. J Baran, convicted her under Sections 304 & 317, Penal Code, holding that the offence under Section 318, is not proved against her.2. The case against the applts. as disclosed by the prosecution witnesses & as found by the lower Cts. is that Mt. Motia was pregnant with an illegitimate child & this fact was known to several persons in the village & specially to some of the prosecution witnesses. On 12-2-1949, suddenly the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj23
ORDERRanawat, J.1. This is a revision petition filed on behalf of the judgment-debtor, Captain Sardar Syed Mohammad Husain against an order of the Munsif at Dholpur, dated 23-3-1949, rejecting his review petition on the ground that the predecessor-in-office of the Munsif, who made the order, did not issue a proper notice under Order 47, Rule 4(2), proviso (a), Civil P. C.2. Mr. shyamsingh, the Munsif at Dholpur, made an order of attachment of some properties of the judgment-debtor in execution of a decree against him. of Raja Babu Kothiari for an amount of Rs. 8309/- on 20-1-1949. The judgment-debtor moved a review petition against the attachment order before Mr. Shyamsingh on 2-2-1949 and the learned Munsif alter getting it scrutinised by the office ordered issue of a notice on the opposite party on 10-2-1949. He was transferred and in his place Mr. Satguru Prasad was appointed Munsif on 10-2-1949. The review petition was then heard by Mr. Satguru Prasad who rejected it, mainly becaus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj20
ORDERBapna, J. 1. The petitioner Gambhirmal filed an appeal against the order of remand passed by the learned District Judge, Nagaur on 12th May 1945 which for reasons mentioned hereafter was treated as a revision and is being dealt with accordingly. 2. One Gyanchand filed a suit in the Court of Thikana Nimaj on 17th September 1943 on the allegation that a certain house and a Nohra situate at Papar were mortgaged with possession by his father Chandan Mal to Shobha Chand and Kalyan Chand in Section 1948 for RS. 500 and that Udai Chand defendant 1 was their sole heir and legal representative. It was alleged that the predecessor-in-title of Udaichand had submortgaged the properly to the ancestors of defendants 2 to 7 viz., Simrathmal, Samirmal, Gambhirmal, Mt. Dhapi, Mt. Teenja and Manakchand, and by certain arrangements between the and defendants, the property was now in possession of Mt. Dhapi and Teeaja. It wag stated that as the defendants refused to redeem the property on tender bein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj15; 1950CriLJ499
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. The applicant stands convicted Under Section 18(1) of Central Act, xxin [28] of 1931 and sentenced to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The case of the prosecution was that on s, search being made of the house of the applicant a number of 'unauthorized news, sheets' were re. covered from his possession, and had been kept by him for purposes of distribution.2. The first point taken up in revision before the Court is that the documents in question are no 'news-sheets' within the meaning of Section S (6) of the Act which lays down that 'news-sheet' means any document.....containing public news or comments on public news or any matter described in Sub-section (1) of Section 4. The matter des-oribea in B. 4 (1)(d)is to bring into hatred or contempt Hia Majesty oe the Government established by law in British India or the administration of justice In British India or any class or section of His Majesty's subjects in British India, or to excite disaffection towa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj10
1. These are two appeals by the accused Baga Bharti, one filed by him from jail and the other through his learned counsel Mr. Indernath Modi, and this judgment will dispose of both of them as they arise out of the same incident and the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. Baga Bharti was challaned under Section 302, Penal Code but the committing Magistrate recommended his discharge under that section and charged him under Section 304 (2), The learned Sessions Judge tried him under that section for causing the death of Heersingh and convicted and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment. Two other persons were also tried by the learned Sessions Judge, namely, Parmanand Bharti under Section 323, Penal Code and Ganpat Bharti under Section 339, Penal Code, but both of them have been acquitted and in this appeal, we are not concerned with them.2. This case hails from the heart of the city of Jodhpur. The parties are close neighbours and have their houses situate almost opp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj5
1. This is an appeal by the accused Mt. Nojali, wife of Durga Jat against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing her under Section 302, M. P. C. to rigorous imprisonment for life for causing the death of Idan, sou of Karnia, Jat, a lad of 8 years of age, on the morning of 6th May 1939.2. The houses of Karnia and Mt. Nojali are situate doge to each other and it appears that the deceased Idan used to go to the house of Mt. Nojali to play with her son Kana who was of the same age. The prosecution story is that on the morning of 6th May 1948 at about 8 O clock, Idan went to Nojali'a house but never came back. In the evening when Karnia, father of the deceased, came home, the latter a mother informed him that Idan was not present. Karnia went to the Kot and informed the Hawaldar P. W. 2 Sbankerlal of this fact. Shankerlal accompanied by P. W. 4 Kalyansingh, P. W. 6 Rambuxsingh, P. W. 7 Bhuria and two other persona came to Nojali's house and inquired from her wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj4
Bapna, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for damages. The appellant sold a she-buffalo to the respondent in Section 1995. There was a calf which the appellant did not include in the sale. According to the plaintiff it was agreed on Kartik vad 13 Section 1995 that the calf should be taken over by the respondent to be returned to the appellant when the she buffalo would calve again and on failure to do so would pay Rs. 25 by the latest on Kartik Sud 13 Section 1996. On failure to pay on the appointed date, the amount was to carry interest at 34 per cent per annum. The suit was filed on 23rd February 1945 corresponding to Fulgun Sud 18/2001 for recovery of Rs. 50 The defendant admitted having purchased the buffalo but denied the remaining allegations and the execution of the agreement The trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 33 but on appeal, the learned Sub-Judge held that the suit was barred by limitation. He accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit. 2. In this a...
Tag this Judgment!