Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1970 Page 2 of about 21 results (0.013 seconds)

Apr 13 1970 (HC)

Mohanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-13-1970

Reported in : 1970WLN603

l.s. mehta, j.1. the charge against the accused mohanlal was that he murdered a woman named mst. goran and thereby committed an offence under section 302, ipc. the other charge against him was that he committed trespass in order to the committing of an offence punishable with death and thereby committed an offence under section 449 ipc. the third accusation against him was that he committed theft in the house of mst. goran and thereby committed crime falling under section 380, ipc. the accused was tried by the learned sessions judge, bikaner, and was found guilty of the indictments under the above sections of the penal code and sentenced as follows: (1) for offence under section 302, ipc. life imprisonment. (2) for offence under section 449, ipc. 8 years' rigorous imprisonment. (3) for offence under section 380, ipc. 7 years' rigorous imprisonment.all the sentences so awarded were directed to run concurrently. the accused mohanlal felt aggrieved by the above verdict and filed the present appeal.2. the story placed for the prosecution is that mst. goran, a resident of bikaner, had been married to poonamchand. her husband breathed his last when she was of tender age. she had adopted a son gyan chand, brother of pw 1 dharam chand, gyan chand lived in calcutta, where he carried on some business. mst. goran resided in her own house in bikaner. mst. siria was employed by mst goran to cook meals and do miscelleneous domestic work. the accused mohanlal is the son of mst. siria who .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 1970 (HC)

Thakurji Shriji Laxmanji and ors. Vs. Shyama Devi and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-02-1970

Reported in : 1970WLN473

c.b. bhargava, j.1. this is plaintiff's appeal against rejection of his plaint under order vii rule 11 c.p.c. as the plaint was insuffioientlo stamped.2. plaintiff thakurji shriji laxmanji's devotees radbey shyam and other instituted the present suit for a neclaration that the sale-deed dated 16.5.35 in regard to the suit property is ineffectual against the plaintiff and for recovery of its possession. it is alleged that defendants nos.3 and 4 were the trustees of the temple and the wrongfully alienatad the suit properties in favour of shrimati chand bai through her guardian ramgopal agrawal. however smt. chandbai was not impleaded as a party to the suit and it is not clear from the plaint why defendants nos. 1 and 2 were abded as defendants. the suit was valued at rs. 12000/--for the purpose of jurisdiction but a fixed court-fee of rs. 10/--was paid on the ground that the plaintiff was not personally interested in the suit property and it could not be valued. on behalf of the defendants, objection was raised that the plaint was insufficiently stamped and an ad valorem court-fee ought to have been paid according to the market value of the suit property. the learned senior civil judge jaipur city no 1 framed an issue and after hearing the parties held that ad valorem court-fee ought to have been paid according to the market value of the property which the plaintiff itself had fixed at rs. 1200/- 15 days' time was allowed to the plaintiff to make up the deficiency but the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 23 1970 (HC)

Mohammad Subhan Vs. Dr. MisbahuddIn Ahmad and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-23-1970

Reported in : 1970(3)WLN706

c.b. bhargava, j. 1. this is an appeal from the judgment and decree dated 10th december, 1958, of the district judge, kota.2. rahim bux and mohammed subhan originally instituted the suit for partition of immovable properties mentioned in para 4(15, (2) and (3) in the plaint situated in the city of kota. mohammed sobhan's name was subsequently removed from the array of plaintiffs and the suit continued at the instance of rahim bux alone. during the pendency of this appeal, rahimbux died and mohammed subhan was substituted as his legal representative vide order of this court dated 21st january, 1965. plaintiff's case is that his ancestor ibrahim had seven sons and the suit properties were acquired by them with their joint earnings. it is alleged that the parties were originally hindu rajputs but were subsequently converted to muslim religion, but a custom still prevails among them that a female does not get any share in the property of the deceased. it is alleged that yasin one of the sons of ibrahim died issueless, gulab mohammed died issueless and ilias and gendaji died without leaving any male issue. plaintiff, therefore, claimed half share in the entire property. defendants were alleged to have the remaining half share in the property in the proportion that shaffiuddin defendant no. 1 and abdulla defendant no. 2 had 9/40th share each and chhotia, azimulla and allahnoor defendants nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively l/60th share each. it was alleged that parties had been in joint .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 1970 (HC)

Bhanwar Lal Vs. Moti Lal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-09-1970

Reported in : AIR1971Raj242; 1970(3)WLN595

orderp.n. shinghal, j.1. this is an application in revision of defendant bhanwarlai against the order of additional munsiff no. 1, jodhpur, dated may 1, 1970, rejecting the challenge to the jurisdiction and the competence of his court to try the suit.2. the suit was instituted in the court of civil judge. jodhpur, on june 3, 1967, as its value was rs. 2,660/- and it was not triable by the munsiff whose pecuniary jurisdiction was up to rupees 2,000/-. the learned district judge transferred the suit for trial to additional civil judge, jodhpur. by virtue of the delegation of the state government's powers under sub-section (2) of section 19 of the rajasthan civil courts ordinance, 1950, hereinafter referred to as 'the ordinance,' the high court issued a notification under clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 19 directing that the jurisdiction of the munsiffs named in the notification shall, with effect from october 2, 1969, extend to the hearing and determination of any suit or original proceeding of which the value does not exceed rs. 5,000/-. the registrar of the high court issued letter no. gen./ii/28/69/10498 dated september 2, 1969 bringing the aforesaid direction to the notice of all the subordinate courts and clarifying that, for the present, civil suits and original proceedings of which the value does not exceed rs. 5,000/-, pending in the courts of civil judges, shall not be transferred to the munsiffs but shall continue to be heard and determined by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 1970 (HC)

Ramdeo and ors. Vs. Firm Birdhichand Sumermal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-08-1970

Reported in : 1970WLN133

s.n. modi, j.1. these two civil regular first appeals arise out of two cross-suits which were consolidated and disposed of together by one common judgment of the learned senior civil judge, jaipur city, dated 29th september, 1958.2. briefly put the facts relevant to the controversy which now remains between the parties, are that ramdeo and others entered into contracts for the forward purchase of 600 bales of bardana (gunny bags) of mah sudi poonam delivery (waida) with the firm messrs. birdhichand sumermal on different dates between posh badi 10 and posh sudi 1, smt. 2000, at varying rates between rs. 81/6/- and rs. 82/8/-. one bale contained 500 bags and the price of 100 bags was quoted as the rate. messrs. birdh chand sumermal did not deliver the bags to ramdeo and: others who filed a suit on 4-4-1947 (subsequently registered as suit no. 45 of 1952) against the firm messrs. birdhichand sumermal and its partners gambhirmal and tikamchand. it was alleged in para three of the plaint, as originally filed, that, according to the usage of the market at sambhar, where the contract was entered into, the goods of poonam delivery are delivered from, badi 1 to badi 5 of the succeeding month and the payment of the price of the goods is also made by badi 5 of the succeeding month. the plaint was subsequently amended and it was also pleaded that the usage further was that in case the delivery of the contractual goods is not given or taken by badi 5 of the succeeding month, the profit or .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 22 1970 (HC)

Bodilal Vs. State

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-22-1970

Reported in : 1970WLN343

kan singh, j.1. this is an appeal by one bodiial against a judgment of the learned special judge, jaipur district jaipur, convicting bodilal for offences under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act, 1947 and section 477a of the indian penal code. for the first count bodilal was awarded a sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 500/-, in default six months further rigorous imprisonment and for the second count he was awarded one year's rigorous imprisonment. both the substontive sentances were ordered to run concurrently.2. the gravamen of the charge against bodilal was that while he was a patwari at village dewan, district jaipur he fraudulently prepared false counter-foils in respect of various amounts received from the cultivator between january 1961 to june 1961 and misappropriated a total amount of rs. 227.70. on 4-7-63, p. w. 25 sualal lodged information with the inspector general, anti corruption department that bodilal had realised more land revenues from the cultivators and while he deposited the correct amount in the government treasury, he pocketed the excess amount realised by him every year. the inspector general forwarded the complaint to deputy superintendent of police for investigations. during the investigations the investigating officer recovered a number of receipts from various cultivators. the receipts so recovered from the cultivators showed that they did not tally with the counter foils retained .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1970 (HC)

Bhawani Singh Vs. State

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-25-1970

Reported in : 1971WLN30

kan singh, j.1. this is a revision application by one bhawani singh. he was convicted of an offence under section 193 indian penal code by the additional munsif magistrate no. 1, bundi and sentenced to 3 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 100/, in default further simple imprisonment of 15 days. his appeal was dismissed by the learned additional sessions judge, bundi.2. the accused who was a patwari bad issued a certified copy of jama bandi ex. p/2 produced in a criminal case challaned by the police against one jagannath and raghunath. that case was commenced by the police on the information lodged by one laxman singh on 22.11.61 to the effect that from his agricultural land khasra no. 150 in village borkhera a 'babool' tree had been cut by jagannath and raghunath. the copy of the jame bandi was produced by the police in support of the stand taken by laxman singh that the land on which 'babool' tree was standing was in his possession. the accused appeared as a witness in that case. in the course of the proceedings it transpired that the following words did not exist in the original jama bandi of which ex. p/2 was the copy:ccwy dk ism+ tks dkvk gs budk gs a bld vunj rhu xv~bs tehu ds vunj ys j[kh gs a ;g hkh budh gs alaxman singh complainant, on the one hand, and jagannath and raghunath accusrd in that case, on the other.entered into a compromise and on the basis of compromise the learned sub-divisional magistrate who was trying the case acquitted jagannath & .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1970 (HC)

Pannalal and anr. Vs. Ramnarayan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-30-1970

Reported in : AIR1971Raj294; 1970(3)WLN729

c.b. bhargava, j. 1. this is an appeal from the judgment and decree dated 16th august, 1963, of the senior civil judge. aimer, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of the contract for sale of a house.2. briefly stated, the facts are that ram naravan, defendant no. 1. entered into an agreement in writing with the plaintiffs for the sale of his house bearing amc no. 24-412 situated in ramsani mohalla. aimer, and more par-ticularly described in para 1 of the plaint. this house has already been sold by defendant no. 1 to sheo sahai defendant no. 2 on 3rd december. 1957, with the condition of reconveying the house by sheo sahai within a period of six years on payment of rs. 6000/- by ramnaravan on the basis of a subsequent agreement dated 3-3-58. it was further stimulated between the plaintiffs and ramnaravan in the subsequent agreement dated 2nd june, 1961, that sheo sahai would either join as a vendor in the deed of sale to be executed in favour of the plaintiffs or that ramnaravan would first get the property transferred to himself from sheo sahai and then would transfer it to the plaintiffs under a registered sale-deed before 31st july 1961. it was also agreed that the vendors and the vendee shall bear the expenses for the stamps and registration of the sale-deed in equal proportion. plaintiff's case is that he paid rupees 468/- to defendant no. 1 on 9-6-61 for the purchase of stamps for the two sale-deeds one to be executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 1970 (HC)

Girdhari Vs. Regional Transport Authority and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-06-1970

Reported in : 1970WLN72

jagat narayan, c.j.1. these two writ petitions have been referred by a learned single judge because he was of the opinion that the decision of another learned single judge in harischander v. regional transport authority requires reconsideration.2. the relevant facts are these. the petitioner is one out of 17 existing operators on the bikaner duagargagh-sardarshahar route. formerly there was no road between dungargarh and ratangarh. a new road was later on constructed and applications were filed by different persons for grant of permits over bikaner-dungargarh-ratangarh route and over bikaner-dungargarh-ratangarh-churu route. these applications were published in the gazette from time to time, and a meeting of the regional transport authority was convened on 25-6-1969 to consider them. neither the petitioner nor any other person filed any objection against the grant of permits on these routes to the applicants in accordance with the provisions of section 57(3). on the date of hearing the petitioner appeared before the regional transport authority and filed an application that it could not grant any permit on the bikaner-churu route as it had not fixed the limit of permits as required under section 47(3). the r.t.a. thereupon proceeded to fix the scope of both the routes the scope of bikaner-churu route was fixed at 5 permits providing 2 return services daily. the scope of bikaner-ratangarh route was fixed at 5 permits providing 6 return trips daily. thereafter at the same .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1970 (HC)

Ram Chandra Vs. Sukh Deo and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-31-1970

Reported in : 1970WLN165

c.m. lodha, j.1. this is a plaintiff's second appeal out of a suit for partition.2. the plaintiff appellant ramchander and the respondent-defendants nos. 1 and 2 sukhdeo and satyadeo are brothers. the respondent-defendant no. 3 smt. lal kanwar is the real mother of respondents nos. 1 and 2, and step mother of the plaintiff. the father of the appellant and the respondent nos. 1 and 2 died on 8-11-1950 leaving behind the appellant and the respondents as his heirs. the plaintiff's case is that his relations with the step mother and the step brother.? were strained, and, therefore, he had started living separate from them even during the life time of his father sheodeo, and soon after his father's death he gave notice to the defendants to partition the joint family property belonging to the parties. but the defendants turned a deaf ear and consequently he filed the present suit on 17-1-1951 in the court of civil judge, jodhpur for partition of the family property and claimed that his father had left ancestral immovable property as well as ornaments of gold weighing 73 mohars, cash rs. 9386/- and household articles worth rs. 300/-. the suit has was resisted by the defendants on a number of pleas which it may not be necessary to reproduce here as the only points which survive for decision in this appeal are: (1) whether a decree for partition of the ornaments as mentioned in the schedule appended to the plaint should be granted in the plaintiff's favour? and (ii) whether the .....

Tag this Judgment!

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