Karnataka Court October 1951 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Basheer Ahamed Vs. G. Padmanabha Kamath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Kant37; AIR1953Mys37
Vasudevamurthy, J. 1. The respondent obtained a money decree for Rs. 15,000 against the appellant with costs and current interest, in Civil Suit No. 148/1946 on the file of the High Court of Madras and got it transferred in September 1947 to the Court of the District Judge, Bangalore for execution. He seems to have filed Ex. 142/47-48 in the latter Court and got some immoveable properties of the judgment-debtor attached. In his present execution application he has sought for the sale of these attached properties. The judgment-debtor has filed objections pleading that he is an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 2, Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act; that he should therefore be permitted to pay the decree amount by annual instalments as provided by Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act and that his immoveable properties cannot be attached or sold except under conditions contained in Section 14 of that Act. He therefore wanted his status as an agriculturist to be determined befor...
The Shimoga Oil Mills Vs. the Radhakrishna Oil Mills Kadiri and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant111; AIR1952Mys111; (1953)31MysLJ129
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. The plaintiff as proprietor of a concern called the 'Shimoga Oil Mills' brought a suit in the nama of the Mills against the defendants who are proprietors of an Oil Mill in Kadiri in Ananthapur District, for recovery of Rs. 3,282/-. The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge and the plaintiff has appealed.2. The case for the plaintiff is that on 29-6-1947 the defendants agreed to supply 1,224 bags of groundnut seeds at Rs. 134/- per candy. The defendants received Rs. 3,000/- as advance but failed to deliver the goods though more than 2 months elapsed and in spite of repeated demands and though waggons had been available for making the supply. The plaintiff had therefore cancelled his order on 2nd and 5th September 1947 and asked for refund of the advance with interest which he has now claimed in this suit while reserving to himself a right to sue for damages for non-delivery later.3. The defendants admitted the agreement and receipt of the advance. They howeve...
R. Kapinipathi Rao Vs. Abdul Aziz Khan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant7; AIR1952Mys7
ORDER1. This is a revision petition against the order passed by the District Judge, Bangalore, in Miscellaneous Case No. 144 of 50-51, on the file of his Court directing summons to be issued to the respondent in the case, before setting aside the order of dismissal.2. Order IX Civil Procedure Code contemplates dismissal of suits for four different reasons. In the first place under Rule 2 of order IX, a suit may be dismissed on the day fixed in the summons, for the appearance of the defendant where summons has not been served on the defendant in consequence of the failure of the plaintiff to pay Court-fee or postal charges chargeable for such service. Then a suit may be dismissed under Rule 3, when both plaintiff and defendant are absent. A suit may be dismissed under Rule 5 where, alter a summons has been issued to the defendant, or to one of several defendants, and returned unserved, the plaintiff fails for a period of three months fixed in such summons for the defendant to appear to ...
Madhu Rao Vs. Subbaraya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant2; AIR1952Mys2; (1953)31MysLJ135
ORDER1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Munsiff, Sagar, in O. S. No. 121 of 50-61 on the file of his Court holding that the defendant is entitled to claim the reliefs under the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act.2. It was admitted that the defendant was a person ordinarily engaged in agriculture and that his income is about Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/- per year. But it was contended that he cannot be-said to be a person ordinarily engaged in agriculture in the area to which this regulation applies for the time being or at the time or the suit transaction, as the village in which the defendant was residing was outside Mysore State, though it became part of the Mysore State before the suit was filed, under the provisions of the provinces and States (Absorption of Enclaves) Order 1950.3. It was argued that it cannot be said that the Agriculturists Relief Act is applicable to the defendant as in the first place, the Agriculturists Relief Act has not been extended by notificati...
C. Venkatasetty Vs. Rangasetty and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant68; AIR1952Mys68
ORDER1. This petition is against the judgment and decree of the Munsiff of Srirangapatna in S C. No. 29 of 50-51 on his file dismissing the suit, filed for the recovery of rent.2. The case of the Plaintiff is that the first defendant took the schedule house on rent from the plaintiff and his brother the second defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 5/- and executed an agreement dated 2-12-47 in favour of both of them. The first defendant pleaded that he paid rents to the hands of the second defendant and handed over possession of the suit house on 16-12-18. The second defendant was ex parte, but was examined as a witness for the first defendant. In his evidence he supports the case of the first defendant.3. The learned Munsiff has held that the discharge pleaded by the first defendant by payment of rent to the second defendant is binding on the plaintiff. This is a case in which the lease deed had been executed both in favour of the plaintiff and the second defendant. It has to be said that ...
Lakshmamma and ors. Vs. M. Jayaram
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant114; AIR1952Mys114
ORDER1. The point for consideration in the case is whether when a person admits his signature or thumb impression on a document which purports to have been executed by him, the burden of proving that the document was not executed by him and that he affixed his signature under circumstances referred to by him, falls on hint or whether the plaintiff is bound to prove the execution oi the document.2. There is some difference of opinion in: different decisions of different High Courts and as the point is coming up in revision frequently the matter needs some careful consideration. The view that the plaintiff has to prove the genuineness of the suit document purporting to have been executed by the defendant event when the defendant admits his signature or thumb-impression on the paper on which the document purports to have been written, is supported by the reasoning that mere affixing of thumb impression or signature-does not amount to execution of a document. It is something more than that...
T.A. BasheeruddIn Ahmed and anr. Vs. Government of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant42; AIR1952Mys42
Venkataramaiya, J.1. These appeals are preferred by the 1st and 2nd accused respectively against their convictions in Bangalore Sessions Case No. 6 of 1950-51. Accused 1 was charged with committing offences under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1948, for having received on the night of 13th October 1948 from one Sanjivappa Rs. 400/- as illegal gratification in order to show favour to him in four cases pending before him (1st Accused) as House Rent Controller. The 2nd accused was charged with the abetment of the said offences. The learned Sessions Judge found both the accused guilty and sentenced Accused 1 to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each of the said offences with a direction that the sentences do run concurrently. As regards the 2nd accused he ordered under Section 562 of the Code of Criminal procedure that he should be released on bail on his executing a bond in a sum...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›