Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1963 Page 1 of about 8 results (0.010 seconds)

Dec 06 1963 (HC)

Ramjilal Vs. Board of Revenue and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-06-1963

Reported in : AIR1964Raj114

dave, c.j.1. this is an application under article 226 of the constitution of india. it is directed against the decision of the learned members of the board of revenue rajasthan passed in second appeal on 23rd december, 1961.2. briefly stated, the facts giving rise to it are as follows:--the petitioner's father gangasahai and one pusharam, who were descendants of a common ancestor bhudarmal, were khatedars of khasra nos. 765, 766, 769, 873, 874 and 946, in all measuring 13 bighas 2 biswas, situated in village giglana, tehsil behror. gangashai died in the life-time of pusharam. on pusha ram's death in march 1945, respondent no. 2 kirparam, who claimed to be his adopted son, got the said land mutated in his name. the petitioner contested the mutation proceedings commenced at the instance of kirparam, but he was not successful. in the meanwhile, the landlords of the said fields took possession of them and so kirparam had to file a suit for recovery of the possession of the said fields against the landlords in the court of the assistant collector, behror on 5th september, 1945. he obtained a decree (ex. 2) for possession from the said court on 18th february, 1943. it was, however, on 11th march, 1949 that he could obtain actual possession of the said fields according to the said decree.3. on 14th august, 1946, the petitioner brought a civil suit (appendix a) for a declaration that kirparam's alleged adoption by pusharam as a son was invalid and that the adoption-deed, which was .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 1963 (HC)

Sunder Lal Chechani Vs. Sampat Lal

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-10-1963

Reported in : AIR1963Raj226

1. this is an appeal under section 116a of the representation of the people act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the act), by one sunder lal chechani whose petition challenging the validity of the election of sampat lal respondent to the mavli constituency of the rajasthan legislative assembly at the general election of 1962 was dismissed by the election tribunal, udaipur, on august 7, 1962. 2. the petition, as originally filed on april 11, 1962, was based, on two grounds contained in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition which run as follows,-- '4. that the order of the returning officer rejecting the nomination paper of shri kesar singh is illegal on the ground that the said kesar singh was never dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the state and that no disqualification under section 7(f) of the representation of the people act, 1951 could be attached to him; that the said shri kesar singh was qualified to stand as a candidate in the election and his nomination had been improperly and illegally rejected. 5. that the second ground of rejection of nomination paper of shri kesar singh as given by the returning officer was that his number of the electoral roll was not correctly given in the nomination paper. this is illegal and improper as the identity of the candidate was never in doubt and that in the nomination paper his name was shown at no. 11 part 108 of the electoral roll of the constituency which is correct. the name of shri kesar singh does occur at no. 11 of part .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 1963 (HC)

Badri Prasad Vs. Satish Kumar Sharma

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-22-1963

Reported in : AIR1964Raj184

chhangani, j. 1. this is an appeal under section 116a of therepresentation of the people act, 1951, (herein-after, to be referred to as the act) by badri prasad,an unsuccessful election petitioner, against the orderof the election tribunal, alwar, dated may 31,1963, dismissing his election petition no. 92 of1962. the petitioner badri prasad was a contesting candidate for a seat in the rajasthan legislative assembly from the bansur constituency. therewere six-other contesting candidates including therespondent satis kumar, sharma. election washeld in february 1962 and the counting of votestook plate on february 26, 1962. the votes secured by the various candidates were as follows :--1.shri satish kumar sharma183972.shri badri prasad gupta121483.shri bhawani shanker2614.shri ram narain4145.shri shiv charan8106.shri sada ram8387.shri heer lal608the rspondent satish kumar shama was declared duly elected from the aforesaid assembly constituency by the returning officer. the petitioner badri prasad submitted an application under section 80 of the act to the election commissioner of new delhi, challenging the validity of the election of the respondent. in his petition, he had taken a number of grounds enumerated in para 5(a), (aa), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) but during the hearing of the appeal he relied only on two instances of corrupt practices detailed in para 5 (a). it is, therefore, unnecessary to set forth the various grounds of corrupt practices relied upon by the petitioner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 1963 (HC)

Pooranchand and ors. Vs. Shriram and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-30-1963

Reported in : AIR1963Raj245

dave, j. 1. this is an appeal by the defendants against the judgment and final decree passed by the learned senior civil judge, ajmer, on 24th october, 1960. 2. it involves two ticklish questions of law and in order to appreciate them properly, it seems necessary to narrate the facts which have given rise to them. 3. all the four appellants are real brothers, being sons of one mst. sardha devi alias sardhamani who is no longer alive. between the years 1936 and 1939 their mother obtained loans from one ramdhan, father of respondents nos. 1 and 2, and executed four mortgage-deeds on different dates. ramdhan brought a suit for recovery of the entire mortgage-money secured by all the said documents, against the present appellants on 14th march, 1946 in the court of sub-judge, ajmer. that suit was at the request of the parties, referred by the court to the arbitration of two persons, namely, sri daya shankar and sri devi dayal who were respectively counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants in the suit. the arbitrators gave their 'award on 21st december, 1949. the operative portion of the award ran as follows:-- 'the plaintiff's claim is decreed for rs. 5,000/-, principal sum, and rs. 3,793/- on account of interest up to the date of suit with proportionate costs. future interest is allowed at 6 per cent per annum only on rs. 5,000/-. the defendants shall pay the said amount within six months and in case of their default, the mortgage-property shall be sold to satisfy the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 1963 (HC)

Kalu Ram Vs. Shambhoo Singh and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-02-1963

Reported in : AIR1964Raj84

orderjagat narain, j.1. this is a revision application by the judgment-debtor against an order of the executing court refusing to set aside an auction sale on his application under order 21 rule 90 civil procedure code. the order was confirmed on appeal by the district judge. the revision application has been contested on behalf of the decree-holder as well as the auction-purchaser.2. a decree for rs. 2,142.87 plus rs. 299.50 by way of costs was passed in favour of the decree-holder on 8-2-60. the decree directed that the mortgaged ornaments would first be sold and appropriated towards the decretal amount and the decree shall thereafter be executed against the defendant for recovering the balance remaining due. the executing court proceeded to execute the decree both by the sale of the mortgaged ornaments and by the attachment and sale of a house belonging to the judgment-debtor. so far as the ornaments are concerned, it was found that they were of spurious metal and were not worth more than rs. 150/-. the proceedings for the sale of the ornaments were thus given up and the court proceeded to sell the house of the judgment-debtor.the first objection taken before me is that the court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the sale of the house before selling the ornaments as directed under the decree, i am unable to accept this contention. the judgment-debtor did not challenge either before the executing court or the appellate court that the mortgaged ornaments were not worth .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 1963 (HC)

Munsif Ali and ors. Vs. Ayub Khan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-13-1963

Reported in : AIR1964Raj183; 1964CriLJ342

orderd.s. dave, actg. c.j. 1. this reference comes on, the report of the learned sessions judge, jhunjhunu, dated the 10th may, 1963.2. the facts giving rise to it are that one ayub khan filed a complaint for offences under sections 147, 323, 307 and 504 of the indian penal code against munsif ali and eight others in the court of sub-divisional magistrate, jhunjhunu, on 8th september, 1960. on 20th july, 1961 that complaint was dismissed by the court and the accused were discharged on the ground that the complainant was absent on the previous date of hearing andin spite of a notice having been issued to him, he failed to put in appearance on 20th july, 1961. it was also observed by the court that no case was made out against the accused on the basis of the evidence which was examined by the complainant by that time. it was alsonoted that the complainant was present at jhunjhunu and the reader was sent to call him to the court and even then he did not care to be present or to produce further evidence.3. on 20th october, 1962, the same complainant ayub khan presented another complaint for the same offences, on the same facts against the same nine accused, in the court of first class magistrate, jhunjhunu. the magistrate took cognizance of the case and issued processes against the accused. thereupon, the accused presented an application on 19th january, 1963 requesting the court to dismiss the second complaint. this application was turned down by the court on 18th march, 1963. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 1963 (HC)

Anopchand Vs. Misrilal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-30-1963

Reported in : AIR1963Raj184

d.m. bhandari, j. 1. this is a civil second appeal and raises an interesting point of law. the plaintiff appellant is the owner of a shop in village atbara (tehsil sojat). the plaintiff opened two windows in his shop towards the south. the defendants erected a wall adjacent to the southern wall of, the plaintiff's shop and closed the two windows. the plaintiff, therefore, filed a suit for demolition of the wall erected by the defendants and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from closing the windows. the allegation of the plaintiff is that the land on which the defendants had erected the wall was the property of the state being a public lane and the defendants had no right to erect the wall and close the windows of the plaintiff's shop, thus obstructing the passage of light to his shop. the defendants pleaded that there was an old wall of the 'pol' at the spot which belonged to the defendants who were residents of barfon-ki-bas and on its falling down the wall was repaired. they also pleaded that the plaintiff had not acquired any prescriptive right of easement and that the defendants had the right to close the windows by constructing the wall in dispute. both the lower courts have dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had not acquired any right of easement for the passage of light and air through the windows. the trial court did not give any finding whether any substantial injury had been caused to the plaintiff and the lower appellate court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 1963 (HC)

Kartar Singh Vs. Bogasingh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-12-1963

Reported in : AIR1963Raj211

d.m. bhandari, j. 1. this is a civil second appeal in a suit for setting aside a sale deed. 2. one uttam singh had 50 bighas of land in chak 1-h tehsil ganganagar. he died leaving behind him four sons and his widow mst. nihali. his tour sons are ajayab singh, tara singh, dara singh and kartar singh. on 19-9-1941, ajayab singh, tara singh, dara singh and mst. nihalj acting as guardian of kartar singh sold the aforesaid land for rs. 5,000/- to boga singh and gopal singh under the sale deed ex. 1. on 20th february, 1953, the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was filed by kartar singh and dara singh for setting aside the aforesaid sale deed. kartar singh pleaded that he was minor at the time of the execution of the sale deed. dara singh pleaded that he was also a minor and his mother had no necessity to sell the land on his behalf. the suit was contested fay boga singh and gopal singh who pleaded that dara singh was not a minor at the time of the execution of the sale deed and mst. nihali was the natural guardian of. kartar singh and had the right to sell the land as the sale was to pay the debts of uttam singh. the suit has been dismissed by the trial court with the findings that dara singh was major at the time of the execution of the sale deed and mst. nihali, the natural guardian of kartar singh, sold the property for the benefit of the minor. it was also held that the suit was barred by limitation under article 44 of the limitation act. on appeal by kartar singh, his .....

Tag this Judgment!


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