Karnataka Court October 1949 Judgments
Puttamma Vs. Chikka Hanumiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Kant18; AIR1950Mys18
Mallappa, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision in R.A. 145 of 1947 48 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Bangalore reversing that of the second Munsiff, Bangalore in Execution No. 317 of 1946-47.2. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether Execution Case No. 317 of 1946/47 referred to above was rightly dismissed as barred by tim.e This execution case filed on 27th January 1947 more than 12 years after 27th November 1933 the date of the decree sought to be executed, and more than 3 years after the dismissal of previous Execution Case No. 802 of 1933-34 on 23rd November 1984, is clearly barred both under Section 48, Civil, P.C. as well as under Art. 182, Limitation Act unless it is construed to be continuation of the latter execution case.3. The short point for consideration is, therefore, whether Execution No. 317 of 1946-47 can be construed to be a continuation of Execution No. 802 of 1933-34. The latter case was dismissed on 23rd November 1934 as decre...
Tag this Judgment!Adinaranappa Vs. Mallamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Kant13; AIR1950Mys13
Mallappa, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree in R.A. No. 105 of 47-48 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, confirming those of the II Munsiff, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 131 of 1946-47 on the file of this Court.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit against the defendant-appellant for recovery of the Rs. 513 due on a promissory note executed by the defendant on 3rd September 1997 in favour of the deceased husband of the plaintiff. The plaintiff relied on an endorsement on the promissory note dated 7th September 1940 for the payment made towards interest. The defendant is admittedly an agriculturist. The defendant is admittedly an agriculturist within the meaning of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act and he has pleaded discharge. This has not been believed by both the Courts and the suit is decreed as prayed for.3. The only point that was argued in this appeal is that the courts below erred in the view that the suit is not barred by limitati...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›