Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-23-1958
Reported in : AIR1959Raj250
dave, j.1. this is an appeal by bhaironlal under section 116a of the representation of the people act, (no. 43 of 1951) which will hereinafter be referred as the act,against the judgment of the election tribunal, jaipur,dated 31-1-1958.2. the facts giving rise to it are that in the general ejections, which were held in 1957 for membership of the rajasthan assembfy, one of the constituencies, namely, jamua ramgarh, was a double member constituency. for the general seat there were three contesting candidates, i.e., bhaironlal (appellant), doongarsidas (respondent no, 1) and one fateh singh. respondent no. 1 got the maximum number of votes and so he was declared elected. the appellant and fateh singh were defeated. fateh singh is not a party to this appeal.for the reserved seat, there were only two candidates and respondent no. 2 ramlal defeated his rival chhaganlal. the appellant challenged the validity of the election of respondent no. 1 only. in the petition which was filed by him he had raised two objections. the first objection was that the nomination paper of respondent no. 1 (doongarsidas) was wrongly accepted since he was holding office of profit under the government of rajasthan as a 'meena bara gaon'. his next contention was that the nomination paper of one shri narain was wrongly rejected. the second objection was abandoned by the petitioner at the time of final arguments before the election tribunal. it has not been raised in the memorandum of appeal and therefore .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-10-1958
Reported in : AIR1959Raj220
sharma, j.1. this is a petition by chowdhary b. s. jakhar under article 226 of the constitution of india.2. according to the petition, the petitioner was permitted to quarry bajri in the area of three plots measuring 200' x 200', 100' x 50' and 100' x 50' in vil-lage pamari pichupara, tehsil baswa in district jaipur in accordance with the lease agreement under the rajas than minor mineral concession rules, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the rules). this permission was upto the 31st of march, 1958, and it was under rule 57(2) of the rules under annual quarry leases. in the next year the petitioner applied for permit for 3 plots measuring an area of 400'x400', but the same area was delineated into 12 plots or' 200'x200' each and the petitioner was again permitted to quarry in the area of these 12 plots in accordance with a lease agreement.the petitioner says that the permission is valid upto 31-3-1959 and the highest rent at the rate of rs. 48/- per plot has been charged from him which he has already paid in full. the petition proceeds that the petitioner was quarrying bajri from the area of the aforesaid 12 plots delineated on the spot, but on 4-8-1958, he received an order dated 21-7-1958, from the mining engineer, department of mines and geology, government of rajasthan, jaipur division, jaipur, informing the petitioner that the said engineer had been directed to cancel the permit of the petitioner which was no. 21071 dated 10-5-1958, with immediate effect.the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-03-1958
Reported in : AIR1958Raj161
jagat narayan, j. 1. this revision application arises out of a suit under section 92 c. p. c. brouglit by the collector of udaipur, in exercise of the powers of the advocate general conferred on him by the government of rajasthan against gcswami govindalji maharaja and some other defendants including three deities shri nathji, shri navanit priyaji and shri madan mehan lalji installed in the temple at nath-dwara, goswami govindlalji maharaj defendant no. 1 is the present manager of the deities. defendants 3 to 12 are members of an ad-hoc committee of management who manage the affairs of the temple along with defendant no. 1. a scheme of management was filed along with the plaint and it was prayed that this scheme might be given effect to under the provisions of section 92 c. p. c. in their written statements all the defendant except no. 7 accepted all the allegations made in the point and expressed their agreement to the proposed scheme. defendant no. 7 opposed the scheme and the plaintiff filed an application praying that he may be removed from the array of defendants.2. the present applicant goswami shri ghan-shyamlalji filed an application before the district judge in whose court the above suit was pending under order 1 rule 10 c. p. c. praying that he may be impleaded as a party. he is admittedly one of the descendants of shrimad vallabhacharya, who founded the endowment in suit. his case is that the trust in question is not one of a public nature to which section 92 c. p. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-07-1958
Reported in : AIR1958Raj214; 1958CriLJ1099
k.n. wanchoo, c.j. 1. this is an appeal by jawanmal against the order of the sessions judge of jodhpur acquitting mt. bhanwari and three others of an offence under section 448 of the indian penal code. 2. we must say at the outset that the judgment of the learned sessions judge suffers from one serious defect. it does not show what facts were found by him as to the incident which took place on 9th of september, 1953. he practically started applying the law without finding the facts of the incident resulting in this case. we have, therefore, to find the facts for ourselves before we consider the question of law undoubtedly involved in this case. 3. the case started on the complaint of jawanmal appellant which was made on 10th of september, 1953. there were five accused in the complaint and they were accused of offences under sections 147, 323 and 448 of the indian penal code. the case of jawanmal was that he was owner of certain house in mathania which he had purchased from his father-in-law magraj in january, 1953. since then he had been in possession of it either himself or through tenants. on 9th of september when jawanmal was at the house, five persons, namely, the four accused mt. bhanwari, champalal, hukmi-chand, bhika and one more person mt. kishni came to the house with the common object of assaulting him. they wanted to enter the house, but he objected. on this he was beaten with fists and slaps. thereafter these people entered the house without his permission and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-26-1958
Reported in : AIR1959Raj214; 1959CriLJ1115
k.k. sharma, j.1. this is an appeal by makhan lal, who has been convicted by the learned special judge, jhalawar, under section 161 i.p.c. and section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act (hereinafter to be referred to as the act). under section 161, i.p.c. he has been sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and under section 5(2) of the act, he has been sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 500/- or in default to further rigorous imprisonment for three months.both the substantive sentences of imprisonment have been made concurrent. this judgment of the learned special judge is dated the 25th of may 1957.2. the appellant was the station master and posted at jhalawar road railway station of the western railway since the 1st of january 1954. the case of the prosecution is that he was in the habit of demanding bribe both from those who consigned the goods from jhalawar railway station or whose goods were received at the said station. one bhanwerlal dalai, hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant, complained to the police authorities about this and on the request of the police authorities, the distt. magistrate deputed shri m. n. kaul, sub divisional magistrate, jhalawar to go with the police party for the purpose of entrapping the appellant.the party which consisted of shri ratan singh, deputy superintendent of police, jhalawar, shri m. n. kaul, sub divisional magistrate, jhalawar, and the complainant, in the company of one gouri .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-30-1958
Reported in : AIR1959Raj44; 1959CriLJ235
orderk.n. wanchoo, c.j. 1. this is a revision by achalchand against the order of the sessions judge of jodhpur in a case under section 133 of the code of criminal procedure. 2. the facts of the case which have led to this revision are these. surajraj, opposite party, and achalchand are neighbours with a common wall between their houses, achalchand made certain constructions on this common wall. surajraj felt that these constructions were dangerous and the wall was likely to fall down causing injuries to him and members of his family. he consequently madean application under section 133 of the code of criminal procedure to the magistrate and prayed that action should be taken against achalchand. the magistrate made an enquiry into the matter and found on evidence, which is not in dispute, that certain new constructions had been raised by achalchand on the old common wall and that part of these constructions was in a dangerous condition inasmuch as according to the expert evidence, the wall was not in a plumb line and was displaced by 7 1/2 inches and was thus likely to fall down. the magistrate, therefore, ordered achalchand to make certain repairs, 3. achalchand filed a revision before the learned sessions judge and the main contention raised on his behalf was that such a case was not covered by section 133 of the criminal procedure code. this contention was repelled by the learned judge and the revision was dismissed. consequently, achalchand has come to this court and the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-06-1958
Reported in : AIR1959Raj218
k.l. bapna, j.1. this case has been referred to a division bench by a learned judge sitting in single bench, before whom the case first came for hearing,2. the respondents dhulilal and chandralal instituted a suit in the court of the munsif, mainwa, on the allegations that the first defendant sukh-deva had mortgaged a mango tree in village jaja-war, situated in the land of dewlawala well, and later on by document of kartik sudi 12, smt. year 1998 (november, 1941), the said mortgagor transferred his ownership of the mango tree to the plaintiffs for a consideration of rs. 72/-, the stipulation being that the plaintiffs will continue to enjoy the fruits of the tree so long as it will exist.it was alleged that the said defendant sukh-deva wrongfully purported to sell the same tree by registered document of 7-11-1950 to defendants nos. 2 to 5, bhanwarlal, birdhilal, mohanlal and sualal. the plaintiffs instituted the suit for decla-ration that the said document was null and void, as the vendor had no interest left in the tree which could be transferred to defendants nos. 2 to 5.the findings of the trial court were that the tree had been mortgaged with the plaintiffs and thereafter the mortgagor executed the deed of transfer in favour of the plaintiffs dn kartik sudi 12 of smt. year 1998, but the said transfer was invalid, owing to non-registration. it was further held that the defendants 2 to 5 had taken possession of the mango tree after notice of the prior sale to the plaintiffs, .....Tag this Judgment!