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 : AIR1951Raj126
Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal by one of the defts. against the appellate decree of the learned Ses. J. Rajasamand in a suit for pre-emption & arises under the following circumstances :2. The pltf. Bhuralal filed a suit for pre-emption against the applt. Ambalal & Nanda resp. 2 for the pre-emption of a house belonging to Nanda resp. 2 situated in Mauza Giloond in the Ct. of the Dist. Munsiff Chittor at Kapasan. It was alleged that the plaintiff had his own house adjacent to the house in suit in which the drains of the plaintiff's house discharged water. At first it had been agreed between the pltf. & Nanda that the house would be sold to the pltf. But subsequently Nanda changed his mind & sold the house for an ostensible sum of Rs. 350-0-0 to Ambalal applt. on 6-8-1945. It was pleaded that the custom of pre-emption prevailed in the village Giloond & also that the real consideration was Rs. 300-0-0. The pltf. claimed pre-emption on the payment of the sum found due by the Ct. The deft. N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj27
1. This is a second appeal of the plaintiffs who had filed a suit against the respondents in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Balotra (Jodhpur). The appellants had claimed that they were the nearest relatives of Birdichand and entitled to succeed to his property of which they alleged the respondents had taken wrongful possession. The defendants in their written statement alleged that the plaintiffs were not entitled to succeed to the property in dispute and that they were rightfully in possession of the same under a will of the deceased Birdichand. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the plaintiffs suit and the plaintiffs have now come up in sec and appeal to this Court.2. The counsel for the appellants tried to raise the objection that it was not proved that the will had been properly executed inasmuch as Birdichand was not proved to have been in full possession of his senses at the time of making the will. As no such objection had been taken either in the written statement or in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj25
1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money. 2. One Thakur Dass Khim Raj of Beewar filed a suit for recovery of money against Tejmal Shankerlal in the Court of District Judge Jodhpur which was compromised by an agreement by the defendants in that suit to pay Rs. 5800. Tejmal Shankerlal borrowed Rs. 2000 from the plaintiff as a part of the amount to be paid to Thakurdass Khimraj. It was alleged that Daulat Bam and Baijnath respondents by an agreement Ex. P. 1 dated Migsar vad 12 Section 1998 agreed to pay this amount to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 2000 principal and Rs. 680 by way of interest thereon. 3. The respondents admitted having executed the agreement but, it was alleged that according to the terms agreed upon, the amount was realisable from the proceeds of the decree held by the respondents against Shah Daudasa and Mb. Chandrabhaga under execution in the Court of the District Judge Jodhpur (Execution case NO. 7 of 1940-41) and further...
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 : AIR1950Raj31
ORDER1. This is a revision against the order of the Additional District Judge, Jodhpur, refusing to reverse the order of the Sub-Judge, Jodbpur, dated 6th November 1948. 2. The facts which gave rise to this revision are that the ancestors of one Kushal Raj mortgaged certain house property to the ancestors of Shivnath Mal on 14th December 1850 for a sum of Rs. 1431 (Bijeshahi). After the expiry of 80 years which is said to be the period of redemption of mortgage in Marwar, Sardar Mal the non applicant died a suit for possession of the said property by pre-emption while the said Suit was still pending. Kushal Raj effected a second mortgage of the said property on 22nd October 1936 in favour of Dr. Niranjan Nath for a sum of Rs. 225 with authority to pay up the first mortgage and the value of improvements and interest thereon, which were mentioned to be Rs. 6500. The suit for pre-emption was dismissed on the ground that the first mortgage was a subsisting one. 3. Sardarmal thereafter purc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj58
ORDERSharma, J.1.s is an application by Shefuddin, Abid Hussin, Ibrahim and Kamaruddin of Udaipur for writ of certiorari and prohibition against Shree K.G. Raj of the Rehabilitation Department and arises out of the following circumstances.2. A notice with the following contents under the signatures of Shri. K.G. Raj for Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property, Udaipur, was pasted on 12th October 1949 on a Shop and a Flour Mill belonging to the petitioners.'The under-mentioned property is hereby declared as evacuee property under Section (2) (f) of the Rajasthan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance 1949 No. XIV [14] of 1949 and notified as such under Section 6, and possession taken by ma under Section 7 on behalf of the custodian evacuee property Government of Rajasthan. Any person aggrieved may prefer an appeal in 30 (thirty) days hereof under Section 5 or Section 30 of the Ordinance to the Custodian Evacuee Property, Government of U. S. R. against the order of the undersigned. D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1951Raj147
1. This is a pltff's. appeal against the appellate judgment & decree of the learned Dist. J., Udaipur, dated 24-7-47 & arises out of the following circumstances;2. The pltf.'s firm, which carried on business at Bombay, obtained an ex parte decree from the Small Cause Ct. Bombay, against Heeralal Lodha of Udaipur, for a sum of rs. 1,467-6-6 including cost. The decree awarded future interest on Rs. 1200 at the rate of Bs. 6 per annum. This decree is dated 6-5.1937. The pltf. brought the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,467-5-6 the decretal amount & Rs. 301-10-6, interest for 4 years 2 months & 9 days at the rate awarded by the decree, in the Ct. ofCity Munsiff, Udaipur. The entire sum claimed was Rs. 1769 in standard coin, which comes to Rs. 2388 20 in Udaipur Coin.3. Heeralal died during the pendency of the suit & resp. Mt. Jeet Bai, his widow was brought on the record as his legal representative. It was pleaded by the deft, that he was a non-resident foreigner & that an ex parts ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1951Raj131
ORDERGupta, J.1. This is a reference made by the District Magistrate, Cehuru, who has recommended that the proceedings taken by the First Class Magistrate Rajgarh, being without jurisdiction be questioned by this Court. The facts relevant for the present purpose are stated as below :2. On 14-1-1949 a report of theft was made to the Railway Police Rajgarh, who after making necessary enquiry, challaned one Naurang under Section 320, Penal Code, in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, who transferred the case to the file of Tehsildar at Rajgarh. On 9-2-1949, as a result of further investigations while the Tehsildar was trying it, the case against Naurang was withdrawn. On 16-2-1949, the Police put up another challan based on the same report, against one Hanuman & his brother Rupa. It may be mentioned here that Hanuman had been produced as a prosecution witness in the challan against Naurang. This latter challan was not put up either before the Additional District Magistrate be...
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!