Karnataka Court March 1950 Judgments
Abdul Wahab and ors. Vs. Ramakrishniah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1954Kant65; AIR1954Mys65; ILR1953KAR521
ORDER1. The petitioners before this Court are the respondents in R. A. No. 147 of 44-45 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Bangalore. The first respondent herein is one Ramakrishnaiah who died on 9-1-1945 when the appeal was pending before the lower Court. The said Ramakrishnaiah filed a suit on 6-11-43 for declaration and possession of the suit schedule properties in the Court of the Munsiff of Dodballapur. The suit was dismissed on 7-11-1944. The said Ramakrishnaiah Tiled an appeal on 3-1-1945 before the District Judge, Bangalore and on 19-1-1945 it was reported to the Court that the appellant was dead. The case was adjourned to 29-1-1945 to bring the legal representative on record. I. A. No. 1 was filed on 29-1-1945 to bring one Ramachandriah as the legal representative of the deceased Ramakrishnaiah. Notices were ordered on29-1-1945 to be served by 2S-2-1945. In the meanwhile, on 30-1-1945 the appeal was transferred by the District Judge to the Subordinate Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Marulasiddappa Vs. Lakshmipathi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Kant64; AIR1950Mys64
ORDERPuttaraj Urs, J. 1. The point involved in this appeal is whether a decree-holder can be allowed to proceed against the properties which were not included in the original application for execution but a schedule of it was filed more than twelve years after the application was first filed. The identical point arose in S.A. No. 12 of 1948-49, and there was a difference of opinion between the two Judges that heard the same, and it has been referred to a Full Bench. The result of this case will follow the decision of the Full Bench. It is but right that the counsel in this case also should be given an opportunity to argue this point before the Full Bench when that case is taken up.2. Therefore, this case also will be referred to the Full Bench so that the advocate on both sides may have an opportunity to argue their respective cases.Mallappa, J. 3. I agree.Opinion 4. The points referred to the Full Bench in Second Appeal NO. 12 of 1948-49 are: (1) Whether the failure to file a schedule...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. SharafudIn Vs. S. Jagadeesan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Kant70; AIR1950Mys70
1. This is an unfortunate case. It is unfortunate for the appellant as the plight in which he is placed is not due to his own fault, but due, to the carelessness of the lawyer whom he engaged to defend the suit filed against him, to the indifference of the lawyer who had agreed to look after the case -- in case he had been asked to do so and to the incapacity of the lawyer who took a defective vakalat from him and filed a defective miscellaneous petition to set aside the ex parte decree.2. A Suit in O.S. 22 of 48-49 was filed against the appellant. He engaged Sri Seetharamiah as his counsel. A statement was filed and the case was posted for reply statement to 24th March 1949. A memo for particulars was filed and the case was posted for particulars being furnished on 17th May 1949. Sri T. Seetharamiah had gone away on a tour in Northern India and according to his evidence he had asked Sri Sundara Rao to attend to his cases. Sri Sundara Rao did not appear for appellant on 17th May 1949, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sannamma Vs. Earappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Kant77; AIR1950Mys77; ILR1951KAR117
Mallappa, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment in O.S. 21 of 1946-47 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Shimoga, dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule properties and that the defendant is not the adopted son of her deceased father. 2. The properties in dispute are, according to the plaint, ancestral properties of plaintiff Rudramma's father Shivappa Gowda. He and his wife Basamma took Rudrappa in adoption, but he predeceased Shivappa Gowda who thereon took Isvarappa in adoption. The latter survived Shivappa Gowda, but died issueless soon after his father's death. Basamma, widow of Shivappa Gowda, is stated to have taken Errappa the defendant in adoption and it is the truth and validity of this adoption that the plaintiff disputes. The defendant-respondent has asserted that he is the adopted son of Isvarappa (sic) and that he is the owner of the properties in dispute and pleaded that the suit for decla...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahiman Vs. M.L. Narasimhiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Kant60; AIR1950Mys60
Mallappa, J.1. This is an appeal against he order in O.S.No. 5 of 38-39 on the file of the District Judge, Mysore, directing inquiry into and payment of defendant 2's share of the profits derived from the suit property till he is put in possession of it.2. The suit was field by the plaintiff against defendant, his father and defendant 2 his cousin for recovery of his 1/4th share in the family properties and for his share of the income from them. The appellant was also impleaded as one of the properties was mortgaged with possession to him by defendant 1. The appellant pleaded that the debt was binding on the family as it was contracted for legal necessity but his contention was negatived and a preliminary decree was drawn up for division of the properties on the footing that the debt was binding only on 1/4th interest of plaintiff's father. The appellant filed an appeal against the plaintiff only and succeeded in showing that the mortgaged debt was binding not only on the share of his ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatasubbasetty Vs. Sahukar M.S. Rasavanna Devaru
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant5; AIR1951Mys5
Mallappa, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment in R. A. 62 of 47-48 on the file of the Additional subordinate Judge, Mysore, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree in C. S. 601 of 45-46 on the file of the Munsiff, Nanjangud. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money due on a hypothecation bond executed in his favour by the defendant appellant on 30th July 1933. One of the pleas raised by the defendant is that the rate of interest is excessive and usurious under the Usurious Loans Act and under the Money-lenders Act. It may be stated here at this stage that the rate of interest fixed in the hypothecation deed is at 12 per cent. the rate of default of regular payment being 15 per cent.2. Sections 14 to 16, Money-lenders Act are as follows:'14. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no Court shall, in any suit brought in respect of loan advanced after the commencement of this Act pass a decree for interest at rate...
Tag this Judgment!T. Krishniah Vs. Government of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Kant44; AIR1950Mys44
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. The petitioner who has been committed to the Court of Session for trial on a charge under Section 376, Penal Code, has applied for the commitment being quashed on he ground that there is no legally admissible evidence against him to justify. In accordance with the existing practice of this Court, the petition was posted before a Division Bench. As the Bench was of divided opinion whether the petition is to be allowed or dismissed it has been referred to the Full Bench.2. The case against the petitioner is that he raped a girl of 7 years on the afternoon of 16th February 1949 in his house at Madhugiri. The Magistrate has in the order of commitment referred to the opinion of P.W.8, the lady doctor who examined the girl that she might have been raped, the evidence of P.W.5 that the girl identified the accused as the person who raped her after inducing her by holding out some eatables to go with him to his house, to Ex. P-2 the mahazar recording this and attested by P...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›