Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: rajasthan Year: 1964 Page 1 of about 10 results (0.008 seconds)

Feb 24 1964 (HC)

Anandilal and ors. Vs. Abdul Hussain

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-24-1964

Reported in : AIR1964Raj240

c.b. bhargava, j. 1. this is a second appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of rs. 3500/- along with interest paid by them on 29th may, 1954 to the respondent towards part payment of the sale price of 106 bighas and 10 biswas of land situated in village ghori for which a contract to sell was entered into between them on that elate. the land was to be sold for a sum of rs. 8500/-balance of rs. 5000/- was to he paid on phagun sudi 15 smt. 2011 corresponding to 8th march, 1955 when the sale deed was to be executed and mutation to be effected in the plaintiffs' favour. two documents were executed regarding the agreement of sale -- one by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs marked ex. 1 and the other by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant marked ex. a1. 2. plaintiffs' case was that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and had approached the defendant a few days before phagun sudi 15 as also on the same day and had offered to pay rs. 5000/-, balance of the sale money and asked the defendant to execute the sale deed in their favour and to deliver vacant possession of the land but the latter declined to do so. the plaintiffs, therefore, claimed a refund of rs. 3500/-along with interest from the defendant. 3. the defendant though admitted the agreement of sale as also the receipt of rs. 3500/- yet stated that there was no agreement to deliver vacant possession of the land to the plaintiffs and since the plaintiffs were insisting on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 1964 (HC)

Nandkishore and anr. Vs. Shrinath and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-20-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Raj124

c.b. bhargava, j. 1. this civil second appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption.2. the suit property was sold by naraindas on his own behalf and as guardian of his minor sons nandkishore and satnarain for a sum of rs. 600/- on 19th december, 1956 by means of a registered sale-deed in favour of madanmohan respondent no. 3. shrinarain and samrathmal filed a suit for pre-emption on the ground that they were co-sharers in the chowk, staircase and entrance of the suit house. naraindas and his minor son nandkishore were also impleaded as defendants to the suit. 3. the suit was contested by all the defendants. one of the pleas raised by nandkishore in his written statement was that the sale of the suit property by his father naraindas was without any legal necessity and was not binding on his share. madanmohan vendee stated that after purchasing the property he had spent rs. 656/11/- in its improvement which he was entitled to get in case the plaintiffs were allowed to pre-empt the property. in reply to the plaintiffs' allegation that the real price for which the property was purchased was rs. 400/- he stated that actually rs. 600/- the price entered in the sale-deed was paid.4. before the institution of the suit for preemption by shrinath and samrithmal, the minor sons of naraindas had instituted suit no. 220 of 1957 for cancellation of sale for want of legal necessity--the property being ancestral. in the alternative they claimed a right of pre-emption of the share of naraindas .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1964 (HC)

Pukhraj Vs. Ummaidram and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-31-1964

Reported in : AIR1964Raj174; 1964CriLJ339

bhandari, j. 1. this case has been referred by a single judge of this court to a larger bench as there is a divergence of judicial opinion in this court on the point whether a sarpanch of a gram panchayat is or is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the state government. 2. the complainant pukhraj had filed a complaint against ummaidram and six others alleging that they had demolished the chabutri and the latrine over it on 12th of february 1958 between 9 and 10 a.m. and that the chabutri was on the land belonging to the complainant and the demolition of the chabutri and latrine had caused to the complainant the loss of rs. 300/-. the complaint was for prosecuting the accused under sections 451,. 427 and 147, i. p. c. ummaidram accused, took the plea that he was acting as sarpanch of the gram panchayat, bilara, and he had directed the removal of the encroachment in that capacity in good faith. the trial magistrate discharged the accused. in his opinion no prima facie case was made out as ummaidram acting as sarpanch was discharging his duty as sarpanch in widening the street. the learned magistrate further held that in view of section 79 of the rajasthan panchayat act, 1953, he had not committed any offence. he also held that: the other accused were labourers and were acting under the instructions of ummaidram and were not liable for any offence. 3. a revision application was filed by pukhraj against the accused in the court of the additional .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1964 (HC)

Chandra Stores, Ajmer Vs. Cloth Merchants Association, Ajmer

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-31-1964

Reported in : AIR1964Raj197

modi, j.1. this is an application by messrs. chandra stores, ajmer, appellant in d. b. civil first appeal no. 46 of 1956, under order 41 rule 19 of the code of civil procedure, praying for the setting aside of our order of the dismissal dated the 20th september, 1963, and for its readmission to hearing on the merits.2. the material facts are these. the appeal was last fixed for hearing in this court on the 20th september, 1963. this appeal was originally filed in the court of the judicial commissioner, ajmer, and was transferred to the jaipur bench of this court in november, 1956, on the merger of the erstwhile state of ajmer into the state of rajasthan under the states reorganisation act, 1956. shri mukat behari lal bhargava put in his vakalatnama on behalf of the appel-iant in the court of the judicial commissioner, ajmer, which bears no date, and presumably it was filed along with the memorandum of appeal 'in that court on the 26th february, 1955. on the 31st december, 1956, after the case was transferred to the bench of this court at jaipur, the appellant also engaged sri j. p. jain an advocate then practising at jaipur. the appeal was complete for hearing on the 4th november, 1957, and it was entered to be listed for hearing for the 21st february, 1958. it was then adjourned to the 8th may, 1958 and the 2nd august, 1958. on the last mentioned date, sri j. p. jain appeared for the appellant.meanwhile the jaipur bench was abolished and the case was transfer to the seat of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 08 1964 (HC)

Mst. Tulsi Bai Vs. Chunilal and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-08-1964

Reported in : AIR1964Raj243

modi, j.1. this is a first appeal against the judgment and decreeof the district judge, udaipur, dated 3rd december, 1953,in an application for divorce wider the hindu marriageact, 1955.2. the appellant is the wife mst. tulsi bai while the contesting respondent no. 1 is the husband chunilal. it is common: ground between the parties that they were married some thirty years ago before the present application came to be filed on the 19th july, 1958, and that there is one son named shantilal born of this marriage, who was 10 years of age in 1958. !t is also admitted that the respondent husband had instituted a suit being no. 220 of smt. 1989 (corresponding to some time in 1932 a.o.) forrestitution of conjugal rights, against the appellant, and that suit was decreed in his favour subject to the condition that he must file a surety bond for a certain sum of money to the effect that he would not ill-treat his wife. it appears that the husband was not able to file the bond and consequently the appellant remained at her father's house for a period of about two years before they resumed their conjugal relations.the respondent's case, was that relations between him and the appellant had become strained because she was a woman of loose character and had developed illicit connection with respondent no. 2 mohan on the 9th march, 1957. it was further alleged that she got the respondent beaten by her brother and father and eventually left her husband's home more than two years ago taking .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 1964 (HC)

Balji Vs. Murarka Radheyshyam Ramkumar

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-26-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Raj23

modi, j. 1. this is an election appeal under section. 116a of the representation of the people act (no. 43) of 1951 (hereinafter called the act).2. the appellant shri balji was a candidate for election to the house of the people from the jhunjhunu parliamentary constituency at the general election held in january, 1962. the respondent shri murarka radheyshyam ramkumar was declared successful at this election. there were more than a dozen other candidates at the election in question, but we are not concerned with them. the appellant's nomination paper was rejected by the returning officer shri v. i. raja-gopal r. w. 2 (collector, jhunjhunu) at the time of the scrutiny which was held on the 22nd january, 1962. a copy of the order of rejection of the nomination paper is ex. 13. it shows that neither the candidate shri balji nor his proposer abdul gani nor any election agent or representative on his behalf was present at the time of the scrutiny. the reason for the rejection was stated to be that the proposer abdul gani had given his electoral roll number as 105, ward no. 13 (nawalgarh); but the name of atma ram son of ramgopal appeared in the relevant electoral roll against the said particulars and wrong particulars given by the prosposer constituted a defect of a substantial nature. the order also shows that all present at the time of the scrutiny were given full opportunity to examine the nomination form before the final decision was given. aggrieved by this decision, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 1964 (HC)

Bhanwari Lal Vs. Shyamlal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-02-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Raj42

modi, j.1. this is an execution appeal by a judgment-debtor against an order of the district judge, jodhpur, dated the 3rd of august, 1962, dismissing an application under order xxi, rule 90, code of civil procedure in circumstances presently to be mentioned.2. respondents nos. 3 and 4 kanmal and chandmal had obtained a decree against the appellant bhanwarilal for enforcement of a mortgage. respondent no. 2 brij kishore is an assignee of that decree. the house under mortgage was put to auction in execution of the decree, and respondent no. 1 shyamlal goyal purchased it. the appellant moved an application under order 21, rule 90, code of civil procedure alleging that there were certain irregularities and illegalities in the publishing and the conducting of the sale and, therefore, the same be set aside. issues were framed by the executing court on the 13th of july, 1962 and had presumably been set down for trial, when an objection was raised that the other issues need not be tried, and the issue relating to res judicata be taken up first as that would go to the root of the whole matter. the result was that the learned judge heard arguments on that issue and came to the conclusion that the irregularties raised by the judgment-debtor had already been decided earlier by his order dated the 15th of november, 1961 and consequently the principle of res judicata was attracted, and the same issues could not be tried and decided over again. in this view of the matter, the judgment- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 26 1964 (HC)

Poonamchand and anr. Vs. the Municipal Board and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-26-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Raj98

order1. this is a writ petition under article 226 of the constitution directed against an order of the revenue appellate authority, kota, dated 6-5-64, whereby in exercise of its revisional powers under section 300 of the rajasthan municipalities act, 1959, hereinafter to be called the '1959 act', it set aside an appellate order of the collector, jhalawar and restored that of the municipal board, jhalawar, by which the board had ordered the demolition of two shops alleged to have been constructed by the petitioners in bada bazar, jhalawar, in contravention of the permission granted by the municipal board.2. the petitioners were the owners of three shops in what is known as the bada bazar in the town of jhalawar. they wanted to construct two bigger shops in place of the three shops and, therefore, they applied to the municipal board on 18-6-63 for granting them permission for the same and by its order dated 15-7-63, the municipal board granted the permission for the construction subject to the conditions imposed by its aforesaid order. here, in the present writ petition, we are concerned with one condition which is alleged to have been contravened and it was to the effect that the petitioners shall maintain the existing distance of 4 feet between the proposed shops and the payed public drain on their eastern side, which was adjacent to the road leading to dhan mandi. the petitioners constructed the shops, but the board was informed that in doing so the petitioners had not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 02 1964 (HC)

Kalu and ors. Vs. the State

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-02-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Raj74; 1965CriLJ478

l.n. chhangani, j.1. the three appellants, kalu, buchia and delia of village binds, have been convicted and sentenced as follows by the additional sessions judge, jhalawar, vide his order dated 21st april, 1964:--u/s.328 r/w sec. 34 i pc7 years r.i.325 r/w sec. 34 ipc5 years r.i..324 r/w sec. 34 ipc1 year's r.i.323 r/w sec. 34 ipc6 months r.i.all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. six more persons were tried along with the appellants but they have been acquitted.3. the facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants and the six others, may be briefly given as follows: one mst. kesar--daughter of goria of village banda--was given in marriage to panna--the elder brother of manna pw/1 of village pathria. according to the present prosecution, after panna's death, manna contracted a 'nata' marriage with mst. kesar on the 12th day of the death of his brother panna. thereafter, the prosecution case is that she went to her father goria at village banda. the prosecution case further is that kalyan son of accused buchia of village binda took her away from village banda and kept her as his wife. manna and others of village pathria thereupon claimed some 'jhagra' money from buchia and ramkalyan. although the controversy in connection with the payment of 'jhagra-money' had been going on for a year and a half before the present incident which took place on 24-5-1963, it could not be settled. three days before the incident the complainant manna collected 30 to 40 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 1964 (HC)

Faujmal Vs. Nathulal and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-27-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Raj115

p.n. shinghal, j. 1. this is an appeal by defendant faujmal from the appellate judgment and decree of the learned civil judge of uduipur dated april 6, 1959, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned munsiff of rajsamand dated april 28, 1958, in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immoveable property.2. nathulal (defendant no. 1) mortgaged his two shops situated in village jilola to the plaintiff and one other person on baisakh bad 7, sm. 2001 for rs. 1100/- and this fact is not disputed. the plaintiff claimed that nathulal entered into a contract to sell one of the shops to him for rs. 300/-and executed agreement ex. 1 to that effect on february 6, 1955. it was also the plaintiffs case that he was all along prepared to pay rs. 300/- and have the sale deed executed in his favour but nathulal avoided doing so and ultimately executed a sale deed of the suit shop in favour of ranglal (defendant no. 2) on july 11, 1957. this is why the plaintiff instituted his suit on july 25, 1957, soon after the disputed sale, for specific performance of the contract in his favour.3. defendant nathulal denied that he entered into a contract for the sale of the shop to the plaintiff and pleaded that ex. 1 was a forged document. the other defendant ranglal pleaded that he had purchased the property for rs. 1951/- without knowledge of any contract of sale in the plaintiff's favour. he did not admit that there was an earlier agreement for the sale of the property to .....

Tag this Judgment!


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