Karnataka Court December 1950 Judgments
Chaluvegowda Vs. Chennegowda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Kant12; AIR1952Mys12; ILR1951KAR389
Vasudevamurthy, J. 1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he is the owner of the plaint schedule property and for possession and mesne profits after redemption from the mortgage with possession in favour of defendant 1. The learned Munsiff of Himsur who tried the suit passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge of Mysore reversed the same; and hence this second appeal by the plaintiff.2. It is the case of both the parties that the property in suit belonged to Chikkamma, mother of defendant 2. She alone mortgaged it with possession for a period of 10 years to defendant 1 for Rs. 100/- under Ex. I, dated 8-5-1933. Subsequently, according to the plaintiff, she and defendant 1 sold it to one Nanjappa Gowda along with some other properties under a sale-deed, dated 4-10-1943. Afterwards the latter sold the said properties to plaintiff under a registered sale-deed dated 28-2-1945. After the expiry of the period fixed in the mortgage deed the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Kempegowda Vs. Annegowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant48; AIR1951Mys48
Yasudevamurthy, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mysore on 1-6-1933 for recovery of Rs. 8,000 due for principal and interest on a registered mortgage bond dated 23-2-1921. The last date of payment made towards the debt is said to be 22-2-1929. After obtaining the usual preliminary and final degrees for sale he got the mortgaged properties sold, and the sale was confirmed on 17-1-44. The decree was thereby only partially satisfied and so, for the balance he applied on 16-1-1917 under Order 34, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a personal decree against deft. 2 and the assets of deceased defendant 1 in the hands of defendants 2 to 7.2. It appears that the plaintiff bad made a similar application for the same relief on 2-6-1944 and that application which was posted to 23-5-1915 for defendants' objections was dismissed for default on the ground of plaintiff's absence.3. The application was resisted by the defendants on two among other grounds...
Tag this Judgment!Muniswamappa and anr. Vs. Government of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant25; AIR1951Mys25
Balakrishnaiya, J.1. The accused were charged under Section 379, Penal Code, for having cut and removed branches of an avenue tree in Nandi Daddabalapur high-road; they were caught red-handed and produced along with the property before the Police of Daddaballapur. After trial, the learned Magistrate found both A. 1 and A.2 guilty of the offence and fined them Rs. 40 and Rs. 5 respectively, and the accused have preferred this revision petition against their convictions. 2. On a perusal of the evidence there is little doubt that the tree in question is the avenue tree on the road side which is the property of the Government, and that the accused have removed the branches without the permission of the authorities concerned. The facts found by the lower Court are not disputed before this Court. 3. Sri B. Venkatesha Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that the acts complained of amount to an offence under the Special Act, viz. Section 43, Land Revenue Code. Under Section 44 ...
Tag this Judgment!Thimmina Katte Kotrappa Vs. Assistant Sales Tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant37; AIR1951Mys37; (1951)19MysLJ72
ORDERBalakrishnaiya, J.1. The petitioner is a firm alleged to be doing business at Davanagore which was prosecuted by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer under Section 20, Mysore Sales Tax Act of 1948 for default in payment of sales tax within the time allowed for which it was assessed. In answer to the charge, the petitioner pleaded that he had been served with a demand notice for Rs. 639-8 but stated that he did not transacts any business at all, implying thereby that he was not liable to assessment. The learned Magistrate repelled the objection and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and directed that the amount of Rs. 639-8, the tax levied to be recovered as if it were a fine. This petition is directed against that judgment.2. Sri Gopivallabha lyengar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, raised two contentions before this Court viz., that the learned Magistrate was incorrect, when he construed the statement of the accused as a plea of guilty; and that the petitioner was not affo...
Tag this Judgment!Siddalingamma Vs. Puttamadappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant31; AIR1951Mys31; ILR1951KAR374
Vasudevamurthy, J. 1. The plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the Munsiff of Nanjangud for a decree directing a karar dated 20-8-1944 (which has been marked as EX B.) said to have been executed by defendant 1 in his favour to be registered. The plaintiff's case is that when he presented the document for registration before the Sub-Registrar, defendant 1 denied its execution and the Sub-Registrar refused to register it. Consequently he preferred an appeal to the District Registrar who held an enquiry; and he also refused to order the registration of the document as he was not satisfied about its genuineness. That order, according to the plaintiff, was on 17-2-1947 when the District Registrar dismissed the appeal and the suit was brought under Section 77, Mysore Registration Act, within 30 days of that order and its communication to the plaintiff. Defendant 1 denied execution of the document. He also contended that the suit was barred by limitation. He pleaded that during the course o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›