Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1960 Page 1 of about 18 results (0.009 seconds)

Jun 18 1960 (HC)

Wazira and anr. Vs. Shamulal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jun-18-1960

Reported in : AIR1960Raj283

i.n. modi, j. 1. this is a second appeal by the plaintiffs wazira and mamla against the judgment and decree of the civil judge alwar dated 22-7-1954, by which he reversed the judgment and decree of the munsiff kishengarh dated 21-10-1952, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. 2. the facts out of which this appeal arises may be briefly stated as follows. the dispute relates to certain agricultural land measuring in all 12 bighas and 2 biswas situate in village kirwari, tehsil kishengarh, the particulars whereof are mentioned in the plaint sis amended and need not be repeated here. the case of the plaintiffs was that the deceased khushal was the 'maurisi kashtkar' of the aforesaid land and that he died in 1946 issueless and without any widow surviving him. the plaintiffs also gave the following pedigree table in the plaint which is not disputed: dalmir ________________|___________________________ | | | | daula amir mohar subdul __________|__________ (no issue) (no issue) | | | baggad khushal badal __________|___________ (died in 1946) _________|__________ | | | | rehmat rehman wazira amar (deff.1) (deff.2) (pltff.1) | masic (pltff.2) the plaintiffs thus claimed that they were the nearest heirs of the deceased khushal and that mutation had been recorded in their favour in the revenue papers with respect to khushal's lands on 5-9-1946. (see ex. pd). the nazim who sanctioned the mutation further ordered that any person who was aggrieved by this order should have his rights decided .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 08 1960 (HC)

Thakur Jai Singh Vs. Thakur Sobhag Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-08-1960

Reported in : AIR1961Raj146

jagat narayan, j. 1. this writ petition has been referred for decision to a full bench along with d. b. civil writ petition no, 4/57 as some common important questions of law arise in them. as however the facts in the two cases are different, it will be more convenient to deal with the two cases separately,2. d. b. civil writ petition no. 187/56 is directed against an order of the board of revenue dated 12-9-56 refusing to sanction matmi in favour of jai singh petitioner and sanctioning it in favour of sobhag singh respondent no. 1 in respect of the jagir held by one sabal singh who died in 1948.3. sabal singh was a panchpana sardar of sheikbawati which formed part of the domains oi the erstwhile state of jaipur. one nahar singh was the common ancestor of the parties. nahar singh had four sons--lachaman singh, pern singh, bhairon singh and bhawani singh. lachman singh was the eldest out of them. on the death of nahar singh his estate was divided amongst these four sons. the estate of bhairon singh was known as jhakora thikana. on the death of bhairon singh, his two sons devi singh and moti singh succeeded to the estate in equal shares. devi singh was the elder of the two. sobhag singh respondent no. 1 comes from devi singh's line.4. moti singh adopted devi singh's son mangal singh. mangal singh had two sons --baney singh and chhattar singh. chhattar singh died heirless. baney singh died leaving a son dungar singh. dungar singh adopted sabal singh. this sabal singh came from .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 14 1960 (HC)

Prem Ballabh Shebait Vs. the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-14-1960

Reported in : AIR1961Raj85

jagat narayan, j.1. this petition was referred for decision to a full bench along with d. b. civil writ petition no. 187/56 (jai singh v. sobhag singh and others) as some common important questions of law arose in them. as however the facts in the two cases were different the two cases were dealt with separately. the connected writ petition was disposed of on 8-11-1960.2. this writ petition is directed against an order of the board of revenue dated 19-12-56 refusing to sanction matmi in favour of prem ballabh petitioner on the basis of his adoption by radha ballabh who died on 20-10-50.3. radha ballabh was the shebait of the temple of thakurji shri vijay gopalji situated in johari bazar jaipur for the sewa puja of which muati land had been granted by the rulers of alwar and jaipur respectively. radha ballabh adopted prem ballabh on 10-12-41. after the death of radha ballabh he applied for matmi over the muafi land situated in the two districts. his application was opposed by the other collaterals of radha ballabh on the ground that his adoption had not been recognised for purposes of succession by the rulers of alwar and jaipur respectively in accordance with the provisions of the alwar muafi rules 1939 and the jaipur matmi rules 1945.before final orders were passed in the case the rajasthan jagir decisions and proceedings (validation) act 1955 came into force under which the board of revenue was the competent authority to decide the case. the commissioner of jaipur .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 1960 (HC)

Narsingh Das Vs. Bhairon Dan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-28-1960

Reported in : AIR1961Raj81

i.n. modi, j.1. this is a regular second appeal by the defendant narsingh das in a suit for rendition of accounts.2. the material facts may be shortly stated as follows. the suit out of which the present appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff bhairon dan on the allegations that there was a firm in the name of bhairon dan madangopal which did business in cloth at calcutta and that the defendant no. 1 narsingh das and the plaintiff and defendants nos. 4 and 5 were its partners. defendants nos. 2 and 3 were the sons of narsingh das and were members of a joint hindu trading family consisting of themselves and their father narsingh das.it was further alleged that the plaintiff held 4 1/2 annas share in this partnership business, defendants nos. 4 and 5 held 31/2 annas share therein each and defendant no, 1 narsinghdas held 4 annas share, and the remaining half anna share, was to go to charity. this, partnership, according to the plaintiff, was a partnership at will and had com-menced its business on smt. 1991 asoj sudi 1, and it was dissolved on chait sudi 9 smt. 2005 when the parties made up their accounts obviously provisionally and decided that no further business would be done and that whatever realisations would be made thereafter these would be divided among the creditors and the balance would be divided between the partners.it was further alleged that the shop was disestablished on magh sudi 10 smt 2005 and that at that time a sum of rs. 0801/9/6 remained due from .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 06 1960 (HC)

Sohanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-06-1960

Reported in : (1962)ILLJ607Raj

bhargava, j.1. this is a revision by sohanlal against his conviction under section 21(1) read with section 92 of the factories act, 1948 (act 43 of 1948) (hereinafter called the act) by the city magistrate, jodhpur. he has been sentenced to a fine of rs. 500, in default to simple imprisonment for three months. his appeal to the court of the sessions judge, jodhpur, failed. he has now come in revision to this court.2. the prosecution case against the petitioner was that on 26 december 1958, the factoryknown as r.j. engineering company and iron re-rolling mills, jodhpur, was inspected by b. kumar, inspector of factories and amongst other defects he found that (a) the flywheel and belts of the engine, room were not securely fenced; and(b) the belts of the lathe in the workshop were not securely fenced.as it amounted to a contravention of the provisions of section 21(1) of the act, the petitioner was informed of this and was directed to remove them. petitioner sent a reply stating that the above mentioned defects had been removed. the factory was inspected again by b. kumar on 27 january 1959, but on that date too he found that the flywheel and belts of the engine in the engine room and the belts of the lathe in the workshop were not securely fenced. a complaint was, therefore, submitted against the petitioner for having committed a breach of section 21(1) of the act. the learned city magistrate found that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of section 21(1) of the act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 1960 (HC)

State of Rajasthan Vs. Shamlal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-24-1960

Reported in : AIR1960Raj256

sarjoo prosad, c.j.1. this special bench was constituted on a reference made to me by a division bench of this court presided over by modi and bhandari jj. as the order of reference shows, the learned judges were 'not agreed on the proper interpretation to be put on article 295(2) of the constitution in view of the opinions expressed' in their respective judgments. they, however, were pleased to formulate the point of reference as follows :'whether the expression 'government of the corresponding indian state' used in article 295(2) of the constitution with reference to rajasthan properly means the government of the united state of rajasthan which was the only indian state in existence at the time of the commencement of the constitution or it also includes the government of any of the covenanting states which had integrated with the united state before the constitution came into operation? 'having had the benefit of perusing the judgments of the learned judges making the reference and the advantage of hearing elaborate arguments of the learned advocate general and the counsel appearing for the parties, i confess that i have felt considerable difficulty in answering the point formulated. the difficulty has been enhanced because of the narrow compass in which the matter has been laid before us, which tends to restrict unduly the scope of the enquiry. rule 59 of the high court rules provides that-'the chief justice may constitute a bench of two or more judges to decide a case or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 1960 (HC)

Jaiwant Rao and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-17-1960

Reported in : AIR1961Raj250

ranawat, j.1. this is an application under article 226 of the constitution of india by jaiwant rao and 13 others against the state of rajasthan, the collector of kotah, the city magistrate of kotah and 34 others for an appropriate writ, order or direction (1) declaring that the kotah municipality was not properly constituted inasmuch as the wards constituted by the collector for the purpose of election were not proper and the elections held on the 26th of july, 1959 on the basis of those wards were illegal and void ab initio; and (2) directing non-petitioners nos. 4 to 36 to quit the office of the members of the municipal council of kotah municipality; and (3) further directing the state of rajasthan by a writ of mandamus to constitute the kotah municipality in accordance with law.2. the application came up for hearing before one of us sitting singly and as some important points of law were raised in course of the arguments, the case was referred to hon'ble the chief justice for constituting a larger bench and has thus come before us.3. the petitioners did not implead the municipal council, kotah as one of the parties to the writ petition in the first instance and they, therefore, moved an application on the 14th of december, 1959 for adding the municipal council, kotah also as one of the non-petitioners. the application was allowed and the municipal council was added as non-petitioner no. 37.4. the facts leading to this writ petition may briefly be stated thus:5. kotah had a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 1960 (HC)

State of Rajasthan Vs. Shiv Singh

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-03-1960

Reported in : AIR1962Raj3

bhandari, j. 1. this is an appeal on behalf of the state against the judgment of the additional sessions judge, jodhpur, by which he acquitted shiv singh respondent of a charge under section 302, i. p. c. 2. the prosecution case is that the respondent shivsingh murdered his own son mohan in the early hours of the morning on the 24th of february 19s7. the motive for the murder is saidto be that the deceased did not comply with the wishes of his father in making a compromise with his maternal grand-mother mst. shivi and in spite of the strong objection on his behalf, he entered into a compromise with her on the 20th, of february, 1957. the litigation was about some immoveable property and under the terms of the compromise, it was partly held to be of mohan and partly of mst. shivi. the accused tried to persuade mohan to go back on the compromise. to this the deceased did not agree. the accused thereupon threatened to skill him and made up his mind to do so and with that end in view, he purchased a sword for rs. 3/- from a kabari dildar khan on the 23rd of february 1957. he took that sword to badri lal for sharpening and got it sharpened on payment of annas eight. the accused and his son mohan with his wife resided in a house at ratanada in jodhpur city. this house belonged to mst. shivi who also resided in it. mohan used to sell milk and for that purpose he kept a number of she-buffaloes in a nohra a little distance from the house in which he resided. mohan went from his house .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 1960 (HC)

The Kotah Transport Ltd., Kotah and ors. Vs. the Jhalawar Transport Se ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-19-1960

Reported in : AIR1960Raj224

sarjoo prosad, c.j.1. these three appeals arise out of as many suits for recovery of damages instituted against the common defendant, the kotah transport ltd., the appellant in all these appeals, by different plaintiffs, who are respondents to these appeals. first appeal no. 21 of 1952 arises out of suit no. 14 of 1949 instituted by the jhalawar transport service lid., the plaintiff in that suit, in the court of the civil judge at jhalawar. first appeal no. 4 of 1955 arises out of suit no. 36 of 1949 instituted by the plaintiff amar nath bhatia in the court of the district judge at kotah, while first appeal no. 5 of 1955 arises out of suit no. 37 of 1949 instituted in the same court by the plaintiffs suit. gayatri devi and her minor son dhirendra. all these suits were field on the same day, that is, 29-7-1949. most of the witnesses are also common, but suit no. 14 of 1949. which has given rise to first appeal no. 21 of 1952, was disposed of earlier on 29-3-1952, by the civil judge of jhalawar, and the other two suits were disposed of later by the district judge of kotah on 30-11-1954.2. all these cases relate to an unfortunate incident, which happened on the 30th of july, 1948, between 10 and 11 a. m resulting in a collision between the defendant's bus no. rskt 428 and the bus of the jhalawar transport service ltd.. no. rs 256 jh. for the sake of convenience these buses will be hereafter described as 'the kotah bus' and 'the thalawar bus'' respectively. the defendant's kotah .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 1960 (HC)

inder Lall Yugal Kishore Vs. Lal Singh Mukund Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-01-1960

Reported in : AIR1961Raj122

sarjoo prosad, c.j. 1. this is an appeal against the order of the election tribunal, pratapgarh, dated 1-12-1959. 2. the election petition in this case under section 80 o the representation of the people act, 1951 (act no. xliii of 1951 -- hereinafter referred to as 'the act') was filed on 23-4-1957 by the appellant inder lall, an elector in the chittorgarh constituency praying that the election of the respondent shri lal singh to the rajasthan legislative assembly should be annulled and declared void on account of illegal and corrupt practices which vitiated the election. the elections in the various constituencies took place in february and march, 1957. there appear to have been three contesting candidates at the election. shri lal singh, the first respondent, who was the successful candidate, secured 7372 votes; the second respondent shri lakshman singh, the maharasal dungarpur, secured 7261 votes, while the third respondent shri chhoga lal only 569 votes. the result of the election was declared on 11-3-1957, and notified in the rajasthan rajpatra on 14-3-1957, and shri lal singh was returned. 3. the grounds on which the election has been challenged are mainly two-fold and have been enumerated in paragraph 4 of the election petition. firstly, it is alleged that the respondent shri lal singh procured or abetted or attempted to procure either by himself or by his agents or by other persons with his connivance or that of his agents the application by persons for ballot papers .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //