Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj14
1. This is a first appeal by the contesting defendants in a declaratory suit. The pedigree table so far as relevant to the matter in issue is as under : ZORAWAR SINGH _______________________________|__________________ | | Budh singh, His deoen- Sawai Singh dant in many degrees is | Bijoy Singh, the present Jawan Singh Thakar of Thikana Makrana. | Nand Singh _________________________________________________|______ | | | Gopal Singh Sursingh Pratapsingh | | ___________________________|______ Prem Singh Balsingh | | | Gulab Singh Anand Singh Dhokal Singh | ___________|____ _________|__________ | | | | | | Himmatsingh P-5 Hanumansingh P-6 Mool Singh D-3 Deep Singh D-1 |___________________________________________ | | | | | | Shivjising D-4 Narainsingh D-2 Kalyan Singh Jorsingh Monsingh Agarsing P-1 P-2 P-4 | Dhulsingh P-32. Kalyansingh, Jorsingh, Dhulsingh, Monsingh, Himmatsingh and Hanumansingh who are all descendants of Pratapsingh sued Deepsingh, Narsingh, Moolsingh and Shivjisingh in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1951Raj136
Amar Singh, J.1. The resp. brought a suit for a declaration that he was the adopted son of one Motilal Mahajan of Bijoliyan & for an injunction that the applt. & Mt. Motiya Bai be restrained from wasting the property of Motilal. He alleged in his plaint that Motilal called him from his village Dhangao in Asoj St. 1995, & kept him as an adopted son & that after Motilal death he performed all the rites & ceremonies relating to his (Motilal) death. The defts. denied the factum as well as the validity of the alleged adoption. The learned munsif Bijoliyan who filed the case came to the conclusion that the adoption was in fact made & it was valid according to the custom prevailing among the Jains to which religion Motilal & the parties belonged. He consequently decreed the suit against both the defts. On appeal the learned Dist. J., Bhilwara modified the decree in that he disallowed the relief for injunction & refused declaration as against Mt. Motiya Bai. So fat as the applt. is concerned, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj17; 1950CriLJ920
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. The applicant stands convicted and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Bs. 500 or, in default of such, to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment Under Section 10 of Central Act II [2] of 1930. The applicant pleaded 'guilty' the charge, and as the only point that has been raised or could have been raised on behalf of the applicant in revision is that the sentences err on the side of severity.3. It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is about 70 years of age and that his state of health is not good. The Jail Superintendent was asked to report as what was the approximate age of the applicant and as to what was his state of health. He writes-to say that the applicant is about 65 years of age and that his condition of health at present is-good, No question accordingly arises as to why a lenient view of the matter be taken. The applicant was found smuggling about 3o sense...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj2
Nawal Kishore, J.1. This judgment will dispose of two appeals Nos. 10, 12/1948.49 as they have arisen out of the same case. The facts relating to them are stated in detail in a single bench judgment of this Court dated 14th September 1946 in Civil Appeal case no. 160/1942-43 and therefore only such facts will be set out in this judgment as are directly relevant to the points agitated by the learned counsel in this Court.2. This litigation between the parties arose out of a dispute relating to certain salt business done by them in partnership. It is common ground that at Pachpadra salt business was carried on by the Government of Jodhpur and the British Government separately and this consisted of transporting salt from the salt pits to the Pachpadra railway station. The work of transporting the salt in connection with the business carried on by the British Government was done by Messrs. Badrinarain Chandan Mal, whereas Messrs. Gangabnx Gulabrai were agents of the Government of Jodhpur, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ762
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. The opposite party filed a complaint against the applicant in respect of offences punishable Under Section 417 and 424, Penal code. His case was that the husband of the applicant had borrowed a sum of RSection 1823 9.6, that the husband was dead and that he intended to file a civil suit foe recovery of the sum and put in an application for attachment of the gold that the husband of the applicant had left in deposit with the Hind Bank. The applicant gave him to understand that be need not worry as she intended to hand over the gold after she recovered it from the Bank. He accordingly did not file the intended suit. The applicant subsequently recovered the gold but did not pay him the amount due from her and concealed the gold. The case, as such, of the opposite party was that the applicant committed an offence punishable Under Section 417, Penal Code, in thus putting him off from filing the civil suit and committed an officer punishable Under Section 424, Penal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ843
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. It is a petty 'marpit' case in which the applicant along with her relations is said to have thrown stones at the complainant. The applicant is & 'pardanaBhin' woman, and her presence during the course of the complainant's evidence on this ground was dispensed with by the trial Court Under Section 205, Criminal P.C. The trial Court subsequently directed the applicant to present herself in person so that her statement be recorded Under Section 245, Criminal P.C. The applicant has come up in revision from this order of the trial Court,3. The trial Court in its order has given no reasons to show as to why it thought it necessary to direct the applicant to appear in person for recording her statement Under Section 2-15, Criminal P.C. The pleader who was appearing for her could have easily been asked to make the statement. It has been held from time to time by the Court that the provisions of Section 206, Criminal P.C. should be liberally constru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ1060
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. These are two connected applications in revision, being Criminal Revns. nos. 6 and 28 of 1949, by Mirehu Mai and Jagat Singh respectively from the order of Mr. 8. A. Eauf, 'Magistrate 1st Class?, dated 20th August 1949, convicting them Under Section 8 of Central Act xxiv [24] of 1346 and sentencing them each to pay a fine of Ha. 50 or in default to undergo three weeks' rigorous imprisonment and further directing one third of their foodgrains to be forfeited ; to the Grown. The applicants filed applications In revision before the Sessions Judge, and the applications were rejected. They have now come up in revision before the Court.2. The case of the prosecution was that the applicants attempted to export from the City of Ajmer Beawar of controlled foodgrains without a permit on the night between 2nd and 3rd April 1948 and were caught hold of at the Ajmer.Beawar Road Octroi Outpost. The applicants in their statements before the trial Court admitted the allegation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ864
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. This is an accused's application for transfer of the case pending against them from Ajmer to Beawar. The application has been made mainly on the ground of convenience to the parties.2. It is an admitted fact that the applicants have not approached the District Magistrate in the matter first. When a remedy was open to the applicants in a lower Court there was no reason as to why they should have come up straightway before the higher Court, If there were any special reasons that prompted the applicants not to go to lower Court first, then they should have given those reasons. It has been held time after time by different High Courts that before an application is made to the High Court for transfer of a case the District Magistrate must be moved first. The High Court would not ordinarily entertain an application for transfer when the applicant could under the law have moved the District Court for the same relief and has not done be. The High Court would interfere ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ771
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. This is an application in revision by Gyani Kartar Singh from the order of Mr. Abdul Kauf, Magistrate, 1st Glass, Ajmer, convicting him Under Section 19, Punjab Public Safety Act (li [2] of 1947) as made applicable to the Province of Ajmer. Merwara and sentencing him to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. His appeal before the Sessions Judge was dismissed, and he has now come up in revision before the Court.2. The facts of the case have been discussed at length in the judgments of the two Courts below, and need not be reiterated. The counsel for the applicant has raised two points before the Court firstly, that the Additional District Magistrate had no powers to have passed an order Under Section 4, Punjab Public Safety Act and secondly, that there is nothing on the record of the trial Court to justify the inference that he had attended a labour meeting.3. An order Under Section 4, Punjab Public Safety Act, as the very enactment stands, could be issued by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ877
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. This is an application in revision by Chhoga and three ofcher3 from the order of Mr. D. N. Roy, Sessions Judge, Ajmer-Marwara, Ajmer, dated 3rd June 1949, in appeal maintain, ing their conviction under Section 19, Punjab Public Safety Act (n [2] of 1947) as made applicable to the Province of Ajmer-Merwara and reducing their sentences each to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Bs, 200.2. The case of the prosecution was that the applicants had been served by the District Magistrate with written notices Under section i, Punjab Public Safety Act prohibiting them from attending or taking part in any labour meeting or in any movement subversive of law and order and that they inspite thereof attended a labour meeting and also joined a procession, wherein slogans with a view to creating public disturbance and inciting labourers to action were shouted. The two Courts below relied on the prosecution version of the story, and held that the applicants had no...
Tag this Judgment!