Karnataka Court November 1949 Judgments
A.A. Khan and ors. Vs. Ameer Khan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Kant11; AIR1950Mys11
ORDER1. This is an application under Order 41, Rule 5, Civil P.C. The point for consideration is wether pending R.A. 64 of 49-50, the execution of the decree of the lower Court has to be stayed on appellants furnishing security.2. The lower Court has passed a decree for payment of Rs. 12,000 claimed to have been contributed by the plaintiffs towards their share of capital of a partnership concern for the dissolution of which the suit was filed and has passed also a preliminary decree for dissolution of partnership with a direction that accounts should be taken for ascertaining the income of the partnership concern. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that even if the plaintiffs have contributed Rs. 12,000 towards capital to the partnership concern there can be no decree for any amount at this stage, i.e. before accounts are taken. What is due to the plaintiffs or by them can only be ascertained after going through the accounts and in case there was a loss as contended by appell...
Tag this Judgment!Subbegowda and ors. Vs. H.L. Keshava Murthy and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Kant6; AIR1950Mys6
Balakrishnaiya, J. 1. This appeal arises out of O.S.No. 632 of 1944-45 filed by respondent 1 in the Court of the Munsiff of Hassan. Respondent-plaintiff 1 and defendants 7 and 8 are the sons of one Lakshminaranappa. The suit property is ancestral to the plaintiff and defendants 7 and 8 and the suit is for possession of the suit property both on his own behalf and on behalf of defendants 7 and 8, with mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession. 2. It is common case that the property was acquired by Krishnappa, the grandfather of the plaintiff, who claims half of the same under the will of the grandfather and one sixth as the heir to his father. He claims two-third share and the remaining on-third is said to belong to defendants 7 and 8 together. His mother, Venkamma, who claimed the property under a gift deed from her father-in-law, Krishnappa, was in possession and enjoyment even during the life-time of Lakshminaranappa, her husband, and owing to defaul...
Tag this Judgment!Martha Samadhanam David Vs. Sudha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Kant26; AIR1950Mys26
ORDER1. This is a revision petition against the order in Criminal Revision petition 74/48-49 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore, confirming the order of discharge passed by the City Magistrate in C.C. No. 1157 of 1948-49 on the file of his Court.2. The complaint is one of bigamy, an offence punishable under Section 494, Penal Code. The accused a Hindu by birth was, after con-version into Christianity married to the complainant a Christian by birth. Both of them were later on converted into Hinduism by Aryasamaj and he then married a Hindu girl. The Magistrate discharged the accused holding that his second marriage after he was converted into Hinduism does not amount to an offence and this view was upheld in revision by the Sessions Judge. It is against this order of the Sessions Judge that the complainant has filed this revision petitions.3. The offence punishable under Section 494, Penal Code is based on the law of England. According to 24 and 25 Vict. Order 1...
Tag this Judgment!Rukn-ul-mulk Syed Abdul Wajid and ors. Vs. R. Visvanathan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Kant55; AIR1950Mys55
ORDER1. The petitioners in these four petitions are the respondents in R.A. Nos. 104 and 109 of 1947-48. Two civil petitions are filed under Section 151 and Order 41, Rule 21, Civil P.C., praying that the Court may be pleased to set aside the ex parte decree passed respectively in the appeals. Two other petitions C.Ps. Nos. 50 and 49 of 49-50 relate respectively to the above appeals and are filed under Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of the C.P.C., for review of the judgment passed in the above appeals.2. Before discussing the merits of these petitions it is necessary to set out in brief the history of these cases. Before these appeals were posted for hearing, the parties filed an application in or about March 1948 to advance the hearing of the appeals for an early disposal of the same. The appeals were subsequently heard by a Bench consisting of the then Chief Justice and when the arguments were almost concluded, the parties took time with a view to effect a compromise. Later, they w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›