Karnataka Court January 1950 Judgments
Chikkadodiah and ors. Vs. Government of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Kant30; AIR1950Mys30
ORDER1. The question for decision in these two cases is whether the convictions of the petitioners for contravention of Art. 17, Food Acquisition (Harvest) Order of 1948 by removing certain quantities of paddy on the night of 11th December 1948 without permits are correct. In ore case 10 bags of paddy were found in a double bullock cart belonging to accused 1 on the way from his village Gutte to another village Dandinadibba, at a river bed. In the other case, there were 51 bags of paddy loaded or about to be loaded in a lorry at or near the same place for the purpose of being taken to a village in another Taluk viz, Koratagere. The prosecution evidence about this and the seizure of the paddy in the course of transit outside the village is not challenged and admittedly the petitioner had no permits with them for removal of the paddy. They contended, there was no need for a permit as the paddy was intended to be taken the Government depot for disposal and even otherwise they are not culp...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumanthaiya Vs. Thavakal San and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Kant9; AIR1950Mys9
Balakrishnaiya, J.1. The appellant filed a suit for the recovery of 'Wara' produce or its value for the agricultural year 1946-47. it is alleged that the defendants were cultivating the schedule laud for about five years prior to suit and failed to deliver the landlord's share of the produce due in January 1947. The defendants denied the lease during the suit year and pleaded that one Gangamma, in pursuance of a decree against the plaintiff and his brother, brought the schedule property to sale and purchased the same; she also took possession of the property through Court; they plead that they have delivered the produce to the vendee of Gangamma and the liability is thus discharged.2. The original lease of the suit land by the plaintiff has been established. The lease appears to be oral continuing from year to year and the agricultural year begins on 1st April of every year and ends on 31st March of the subsequent year. The courts below have found on facts that Gangamma who obtained a ...
Tag this Judgment!Rukn-ul-mulk S. Abdul Wajid and ors. Vs. Gajambal Ramalingam and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Kant57; AIR1950Mys57
Balakrishnaiya, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs as executors of a will who applied to the Court of the District Judge, Bangalore, for grant of Letters of Administration with an authenticated copy of the will annexed in respect of the schedule assets belonging to deceased V. Ramalingam. The respondents are the wife and children of the testator. The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 4 of 1943 in the Court of the District Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore. The suit was decreed granting probate in respect of the deceased's properties within the jurisdiction of that Court. Against that judgment R.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1944 were filed by the respondents, the wife and children of the deceased in the Court of the Hon'ble the British Resident in Mysore at Bangalore and the said appeals were dismissed on 5th July 1944. Against the appellate judgment, the respondents preferred an appeal to the Privy Council which was pending on the date of the judgment of the lower court. The executors also filed O.P...
Tag this Judgment!H. Sahadeviah and anr. Vs. Venkatamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Kant21; AIR1950Mys21
ORDER1. On a complaint petition filed by one Venkatamma who is examined as P.W. 2 in the case against the petitioners-accused, the learned Second Magistrate, Bangalore, directed the case to be taken on file and it was accordingly registered as C C No. 812 of 48 49. Amongst other things it was alleged in the complaint that the accused beat and kicked the complainant on 12 2-1949 at about 7.30 p. m. The learned Magistrate tried the case summarily for an offence under Section 323, Penal Code, and found the accused persons guilty and convicted and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 30 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six days. It is against this order the accused have come up in revision before this Court.2. The learned Advocate for the petitioners argued at the outset that the trial Magistrate having failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 342, Criminal P.C., by note examining the accused after prosecution witnesses were further cross-examined by him an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›