Karnataka Court September 1950 Judgments
M.A. Narasimhachar Vs. Malliah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant28; AIR1951Mys28
ORDERBalakrishnaiya, J.1. The Petitioner was the plaintiff who filed an application on 25-11-47 under Order. 47, Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151, Civil P. C., praying for review of the order dated 25-8-47 dismissing the application No. V, for a personal decree in O. S. No. 307/34-35 on the file of the First Munsif of Mysore. The suit was filed on the foot of a hypothecation deed dated 5 4.1917 (with three years' time for payment). The suit wag filed on 26-11-34, alleging amongst other things that the cause of action arose on several dates including 26-11-1928. being the last date of an alleged payment of some amount towards the suit claim which had not been duly endorsed on the bond or signed by the parties making the payment. The preliminary decree was passed on 30-11-1935 and the final decree on 11-8-1938; in execution of the said decree, the mortgaged prosperity was sold and purchased for Rs. 40/-and the sale was confirmed on 12-1S-1941. The plaintiff-decree-holder tiled an ap...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanna Vs. H.S. Rangaswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant13; AIR1951Mys13
ORDERMallappa, J.1. This is a revision petition against the judgment in S. C. No. 86 of 47-48 on the file of the Munsiff of Hassan, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for rent as prayed for.2. According to the allegations in the plaint, the plaintiff leased the property to the defendant as stated in what was termed as rent chit. The defendant denied his having executed the rent chit and his being a tenant. He did not claim any title of his own in the property. The lower Court believed that the rent chit was executed by the defendant. The main contention urged in revision against the decision of the lower Court is that the suit based on unregistered document referred to as the rent chit is not maintainable.3. According to Section 105, T. P. Act, a lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Basappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant1; AIR1951Mys1
1. This is an appeal against the judgment in Shimoga Sessions Case 3 of 49-50 in which the appellants have been convicted of an offence under Section 302, Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life.2. According to the prosecution case, the accused and others entered, on the night of 13-12-1948, a building known as Tudekoppada Mutt which is at a distance of a few miles from Sagar and committed offences of house-breaking and robbery, in the course of which one Puttasamiah an inmate of the house was murdered. P. W. 9 Shiviah, to whom the Mutt belongs, was residing in it with the other members of his family and a few relatives had also come in connection with some ceremony. On the night of 13-12-1948, P. W. 9 Shiviah and some of the members of his family had gone to Sagar to see a circus. He and one Karibasiah remained at Sagar, while the other members of the family returned to the Mutt. Early in the morning, his son-in-law Lingamurti came to Sagar and told him about the house-br...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Thompson Vs. J.A. Gordon
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant53; AIR1951Mys53
Mallappa, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment in O. S. 59 of 1947 on the file of the District Judge, Civil Station, directing that the probate of the will Ex. A, shall be granted to the plaintiff as prayed for, with costs, advocate's fee being fixed at Rs. 50. The respondent has filed cross-objections claiming Rs. 410 as advocate's fee.2. The proceedings were instituted by filing an application under Sections 222 and 276, Succession Act for the grant of a probate in respect of the will Ex. a, executed by deceased Mrs. A.N. Gordon, leaving all her properties to the respondent-plaintiff J.A. Gordon, her son. and appointing him as the sole executor. The appellant-defendant who entered caveat as per law is the only daughter of Mrs. A.E. Gordon. Ac-cording to her, Mrs. A.E. Gordon was 70 years of age at the time of her death on 30-6-1947, and the will said to have come into existence on 22-3-1947 must have been obtained, if genuine, by undue influence of the plaintiff. Mrs. A.E. Gor...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Gangadhariah Vs. Thimmamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Kant7; AIR1951Mys7
ORDER1. The petitioner who is the plaintiff before the trial Court filed a suit in O. S. No. 124 of 45-46 against the respondents on the foot of a mortgage deed and the suit was dismissed for default of the plaintiff. He filed then Misc. Application No. 167 of 46-47 under Order 9 Rule 9. Civil P. C. to have the ex parte dismissal order set aside. That application too was dismissed once again for default of the plaintiff-petitioner. He thereupon filed an application in Misc. case No. 103 of 47-48 under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P. C. before the trial Court to have the said ex parte order reviewed and the learned Munsiff held that it was not maintainable. This revision petition is filed against the said order.2. The learned Judge who heard this petition felt that the point involved was fairly important and that there was divergence of opinion even is this Court and therefore referred this petition to a Bench.3. Only two points arise for consideration is this petition. The first of them is ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›