Karnataka Court August 1950 Judgments
S.K. Venkatachala Seti Vs. Chuluviah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant52; AIR1951Mys52
Mallappa, J.1. This is a revn. petn. against an order passed by the Subordinate J. Tumkur, confirming that of the Munsiff of Tiptur who held that an appln. filed by the petnr, under Order 9, Rule 9, C. P. C., to set aside the ex parte decree partly dismissing his suit O. S. No. 317 of 46-47 on account of his absence, was not maintainable.2. The suit filed by the petnr. was for the recovery of money & at an adjourned date of hearing, he was absent. In view of the fact that the deft, bad admitted a portion of the suit claim, a decree was passed for the admitted amount & the rest of the suit must be deemed to have been dismissed as a decree was not passed for the entire amount claimed in the plaint. It is clear the decision dismissing the suit in respect of the part of the suit claim was ex parte as the pltf. was absent. It is unnecessary to refer to the question as to whether Rule 2 or Rule 3 of Order 17 applies to cases of that kind as that matter has been considered in the F. B. decisi...
Tag this Judgment!Jayachamarajendra Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Madaiah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant9; AIR1951Mys9
ORDERVasudevamurthy, J.1. These two revision petitions have been filed against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Mysore in Execution cases, Nos. 840 and 1216 of 1947-48 on his file. Sri Jayachamarajendra Co-operative Society Ltd., Mysore, filed those applications on 10th November 1947 to recover amounts due to it under the decisions passed on 3rd December 1935 by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies in disputes Nos. 1314/34-35 and 754/33-34. The two previous execution applications made to the civil court, obviously on certificates by the Registrar before taking out execution proceedings in the civil Court, were dismissed in the year 1942. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the applications were barred by limitation. Hence these revision petitions.2. The present execution applications are prima facie barred by limitation. Mr. Y. M. C. Sharma who appears for the decree-holder-Society contends that the applications are within time by virtue of Section 60, ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataramana Jois Vs. Shanbhog Veerappiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Kant81; AIR1950Mys81
Medapa, C.J.1.The petitioner prays that the order, dated 17th June 1949, passed by the Munsiff of Hassan in Os. No. 658/47-48 on the file of his Court be revised. The suit was for the recovery of money due on a pronote executed by the petitioner and two other s who have been impleaded as the co-defendants of the petitioner in the suit. The two co-defendants of the petitioner accepted the allegation of the plaintiff that they were agriculturists but the petitioner contended that he was not an agriculturist. T he learned Munsiff, relying upon Sections 3 and 24, Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act, decided the issue against the petitioner (defendant 3) and held that he also was an agriculturist. Hence this petition. The Revision, Judge, before whom this petition came up for hearing, has ordered the petition to be posted for a Bench as it in evolves an important question of law regarding the interpretation question of law regarding the interpretation of Sections 3 and 24, Mysore Agriculturis...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ahamad
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Kant82; AIR1950Mys82
Mallappa, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Principle Sessions Judge, Mysore Division, in Hassan Sessions Case No. 2 of 1949-50 convicting the appellant accused of an offence under Section 302, Penal Code, and sentencing him to death. A reference is also made under Section 374, Criminal P.C. 2. The prosecution case is that the accused, who is a coolie in what is known as Halekere Coffee Estate in Sakalespur Taluk murdered one Kunni alias Kunjapo. The motive for the offence is said to be that the accused's father-in-law refused to give the accused's wife's sister in marriage to him and that it had been settled that she had to marry Kunjapo. 3. The material witnesses, however, are his wife, father-in-law and other relatives who depose to the accused being angry on the refusal of his father-in-law and other relatives who depose to the accused being angry on the refusal of his father-in-law to give his wife's sister in marriage to him and to his having gone alone with Kun...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›