Karnataka Court November 1950 Judgments
Channabasavegowda and ors. Vs. Rangegowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant38; AIR1951Mys38
Yenkataramaiya, J.1. This appeal has been referred to the Full Bench for disposal as the Division Bench by which it was heard was of divided opinion as regards the decision in the ease. The suit from which the appeal arises is of a familiar kind in which the song seek shares in certain properties alleging that these are of a joint family and the alienations thereof by their fathers are ineffective 30 far as they are concerned. As can be seen from the following genealogical tree KAVALU THIMME GOWDA | ___________________________|_____________________________________ | | | | K. Girl Gowda (Ist Deft). K. Naojegowda (dead) K. Mari Gowda (2nd Deft.) K. Rame Gowda (3rd Deft.) | | | | _____|_______ Sons _______|______ ________|______ | | (Plffs. 7 to 9) | | | |(Sons. (Plffs. Daughters Sons Daughter Sons Daughters 1 to 4) (Plffs. 11 and 12) (Plffs. 5 and 6) (Plff.13) (Plff.10) (Plffs. 14 & 15)the plaintiffs are the grand-children of one Kavalu Thimme Gowda, by different sons and include g...
Tag this Judgment!The Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association Vs. the District Magi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant14; AIR1951Mys14
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association against the District Magistrate, Bangalore, and the Government of Mysore represented by the Chief Secretary for the issue of 'writs of certiorari, prohibition or other appropriate writ or writs' to cancel the order of the District Magistrate, Bangalore District, notified in the Mysore Gazette on 10-11-1949, directing that all hotels, restaurants, milk bar and coffee clubs, etc., in the villages of the Bangalore District except those as are licensed by the Amildar of the Taluk under the Village Panchayat Act should be closed immediately. The Association is said to have been registered under the Mysore Societies Registration Act III [3] of 1904 on 14-3-1950.2. In support of the application an affidavit has been filed by the Hon. Secretary of the Association. In that affidavit it is stated that the objects of the Association are inter alia to...
Tag this Judgment!Puttamma Vs. Veerabhadra Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant22; AIR1951Mys22
Vasudevamurthy, J. 1. The plaintiff who is the appellant before us filed two claim petitions in Misc. Cases Nos. 35 and 36 of 1947-48 in the Court of the First Munsiff of Mysore objecting to the attachment of a house in execution of two decrees obtained by defendants 1 and 4 against defendants in O. S. No. 406/45-46 and O.S. No. 328/46-47. Her claims were disallowed and the filed a suit O. S. 526/47-48 under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P. C., in the same Court for setting aside the summary orders passed in these miscellaneous proceedings. She first paid on her plaint a court-fee of Rs. 12-8-0 fixed under Article 11 of Schedule II, Mysore Court-Fees Act, and later on paid a further sum of Rs. 12-8-0 as she was asking for two orders to be set aside. In the plaint the value for jurisdiction was not given. In their written statements defendants l and 4 pleaded that the property included within the boundaries given in the schedule to the plaint really consisted of two houses and that their val...
Tag this Judgment!S. Hassan Sait Vs. K.P. Mirchandani
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant24; AIR1951Mys24
ORDERBalakrishnaiya, J.1. This revision petition arises out of S. C. S. no. 252 of 1948-49 before the District Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 150 being the rent due for the month of January 1949 on the foot of a written agreement which was filed into Court. The defendant raised a plea that the suit-claim was not enforceable as the written lease was not registered. He also pleaded discharge of the suit claim. When the case came up for evidence the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint by adding a plea that the suit must be deemed to have been based on an oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. The amendment was also refused on the ground that the suit for rent cannot be converted into one for use and occupation. The trial Court applying Section 107, T. P. Act, held that the claim on the foot of an unregistered deed is not sustainable. This revision petition is preferred against that order. 2. The learned trial ...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works and ors. Vs. Free Indian Beedi Works and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant29; AIR1951Mys29
Yasudevamurthy, J. 1. The plaintiffs are a registered firm in Mysore manufacturing and selling beedies under the Dame and style of 'Mangalore Ganesh Beedi works.' They have filed a suit against the defendants in the Court of the District Judge of Mysore for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, affixing or otherwise using in connection with their business of beedies any colourable imitation of plaintiffs' registered trade marks and for damages. The defendants have been carrying on similar business in the name of 'Free India Beedi Works' in Bangalore. 2. After filing the suit the plaintiffs applied for a temporary injunction which was granted in their favour ex parte. The defendants subsequently applied for the Betting aside of that order and the learned District Judge, after hearing arguments cancelled hia previous order. He, however, directed the defendants to furnish the accounts of their business once in six months and 'give security to compensate the...
Tag this Judgment!Siddegowda and anr. Vs. Kullegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant17; AIR1951Mys17
ORDERVasudevamurthy, J.1. The respondent Kullegowda filed an application under Section 144, Criminal P. C., in the Court of the Special First Class Magistrate, Nanjangud, alleging that he had leased some lands of his in Hunasanalu village to petitioner 2, that he wanted to sell away his lands and house in that village and go away to another village, that petitioner 2 and his eldest brother, petitioner 1, were pressing him not to sell them but to allow them to continue as lessees, that he had refused that he had removed his own family members to the neighbouring village and came back on 7-5 50 to take away his 4 carts and other movables from his house and that the petitioners obstructed him and threatened him with sickles and other weapons and did not allow him to enter his house, that he approached the police of Nanjangud and they asked him to get an order of the Court before they could help and that accordingly the Court should grant an ex parte order in his favour directing the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Rahmath Unnissa Begum Vs. Shimoga Co-operative Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant59; AIR1951Mys59; ILR1951KAR196
Yasudeyamurthy, J. 1. The pltf. is the applt. before us. 'She filed a suit in O. S. No. 12/46-47 on the file of the Diat. J , Shimoga, against the Shimoga Co-operative Bank Ltd., as deft. 1 & one A.K. Nannesab as deft, 2 Her case was that the plaint schedule house which 13 situated in Shimoga Town belonged to her, that deft. 2 claiming that they had purchased the same in Ct. auction had sought to take possession from her when as she did not want to involve herself in further litigation, she entered into an agreement with deft, I on or about 7-4 1941 to purchase the property for its. 1,400; of this a sum of Rs. 200 was to be paid as part of the purchase money & the balance in monthly instalments of Rs. 15, the entire amount being payable by the end of December 1947; that accordingly she bad paid a sum of Rs. 200 & had also paid some instalments & that nevertheless deft. I had purported to sell the property to deft. 2 for a sum of Rs. 3,800 on 17-7-1945. She, therefore, sought for specif...
Tag this Judgment!Ratilal Bros. Vs. the Govt. of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant66; AIR1951Mys66; ILR1951KAR99
Yenkata Ramaiya, J. 1. This petn. is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of writs of certiorari & prohibition to quash the order passed by reap. 1 & for a direction that the said order should not be executed. The ground on which the writs are sought is that the order passed by resp. 1 for eviction of the petnrs. from the premises of which resp. 2 is the owner is without jurisdiction under the provisions of the Mysore House Rent & Accommodation Control Order. Respondent 3 is said to be an unregistered association of Jains of the Swatambar cult & purchased the building in about the year 1947 for the purpose of running a residential Hindi school. The petnrs. have been the tenants of the premises from a time long prior to the date of the purchase by resp. 2. An appln. made by resp, 2 to the House Rent Controller for eviction of the petnrs. on the ground that it was needed for opening the school was unsuccessful. A similar appln. 61ed in the following year was allow...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›