Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

M.M. Sankanagouder Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.

M.M. Sankanagouder vs The State of Mysore and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Karnataka Decided Jan 18, 1972
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/377337

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Karnataka High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petn. No. 65 of 1970
Subject
Service
Disposition
Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 100: [A.S. Bopanna, J] Second appeal - Suit for declaration and permanent injunction - Plaintiff claimed to be the Donee under the Gift Deed - Finding of the lower Appellate Court that the Gift deed Ex.P1 cannot be accepted as the attesting witness not being examined - Held, That the document marked as Ex....

Key legal issue
Service
Outcome / disposition
Petition allowed
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.M. Sankanagouder

Advocate K.S. Savanur, Adv.

Respondent

The State of Mysore and ors.

Advocate K.S. Puttaswamy, High Court Govt. Pleader and ;Murlidhar Rao, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In
AIR1972Kant352; AIR1972Mys352

Excerpt

- section 100: [a.s. bopanna, j] second appeal - suit for declaration and permanent injunction - plaintiff claimed to be the donee under the gift deed - finding of the lower appellate court that the gift deed ex.p1 cannot be accepted as the attesting witness not being examined - held, that the document marked as ex.p-1 is the certified copy of the gift deed which is marked as secondary evidence as provided under section 65 of the evidence act after laying the foundation vide ex.p-9 stating that the original of the document is deposited with the pld bank. however, the perusal of the records would indicate that the defendants have not raised any objection before the trial court for marking the certified copy of the document at the time of evidence nor is it indicated as a ground in the appeal memo before the lower appellate court. there is no objection raised at the stage of marking the document as secondary evidence though it is contended that the mode of proof is irregular and insufficient. the finding of the lower appellate court that the document at ex.p-1 being inadmissible is not sustainable. that apart, it is noticed that the endorsement (ex.p-9) issued by the bank is of the year 1996 and as such if the loan has been discharged and if the document is available with the plaintiff, it would be open for him to produce the same before the lower appellate court along with an application. matter is remanded to lower appellate court. a. narayana pai, c.j.1. the order impugned in this case is an order of the state government bearing no. rd 208 eng 39 dated 10/19th june 1964, whereby sanction was accorded to the pre-enlistment service in respect of 130 officials of belgium. bijapur and dharwar districts as noted in the annexed statement being counted for purposes of pay, pension and seniority.2. the attack or challenge is limited to the question of seniority only.3. so far as that matter is concerned, the contentions and arguments are not different from those considered in our order just pronounced in writ petition no. 530 of 1969 (reported in 1972 lab ic 1204 (mys)) and connected cases.4. applying the same, therefore, we quash the impugned order bearing no. rd 208 eng 39, dated 10/19th june 1964 to the extent it directs that the pre-enlistment service shall be taken into account for the purpose of seniority.

Full Judgment

A. Narayana Pai, C.J.

1. The order impugned in this case is an order of the State Government bearing No. RD 208 ENG 39 dated 10/19th June 1964, whereby sanction was accorded to the pre-enlistment service in respect of 130 officials of Belgium. Bijapur and Dharwar Districts as noted in the annexed statement being counted for purposes of pay, pension and seniority.

2. The attack or challenge is limited to the question of seniority only.

3. So far as that matter is concerned, the contentions and arguments are not different from those considered in our order just pronounced in Writ Petition No. 530 of 1969 (reported in 1972 Lab IC 1204 (Mys)) and connected cases.

4. Applying the same, therefore, we quash the impugned order bearing No. RD 208 ENG 39, dated 10/19th June 1964 to the extent it directs that the pre-enlistment service shall be taken into account for the purpose of seniority.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial