Karnataka Court November 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.
Kempe Gowda Vs. Lakkegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant99; AIR1952Mys99; (1953)31MysLJ156
1. These appeals are tne off-shoots of the decision of this Court in S. A. No. 182 of 45-46 which arose out of _a suit filed by the Respondent for a declaration of his right to and possession of the plaint schedule properties and in the alternative for a decree for sale on the foot of a mortgage deed marked Exhibit J. The facts which are not in dispute are fully stated in the judgment of that appeal and need only be briefly referred to, to appreciate the points in controversy.2. The lands involved in this litigation formerly belonged to the family of one Venkata Rao and his sons. One of the sons of the said Venkata Rao filed a suit for partition of the family properties and during the pendency of the appeal preferred against the decree of the trial Court in that suit, a settlement appears to have been arrived at between the members of the family on the one hand and the creditors on the other. The terms of the settlement were embodied in a document styled composition deed dated 1-7-1934...
Hayath Saheb and ors. Vs. B. Bharamanna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Kant105; AIR1953Mys105
1. The plaintiffs brought their suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Chitaldrug for redemption and possession of the plaint schedule house and for mesne profits. Their case was that the plaintiffs and Ismail Sab, the deceased father of plaintiffs 1 to 3, executed in favour of the defendant a deed of mortgage by conditional sale dated 22-10-1936 for Rs. 4,000/-. It was stipulated therein that II the plaintiffs paid 'Rs. 4,000/- within the time fixed in it the defendant should reconvey the property to them; that though they had arranged for the payment and tendered the amount within time, the defendant had deliberately evaded to receive it.1a. The defendant denied that the deed of 22-10-1936 was in the nature of a mortgage by conditional sale. It was really a deed' of sale with a condition for reconveyance and as the plaintiffs had not paid or tendered the amount in time as stipulated therein they were not entitled to any relief. The Subordinate Judge held that the deed in quest...
Byappanahalli Muniamma Vs. Arale Chikkaveeranna and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant105; AIR1952Mys105
Vasudevamurthy, J. 1. The Plaintiff, whose suit for a declaration, that a sale held by the Revenue authorities of the plaint schedule properties was a nullity, has been dismissed, has preferred this appeal. Her case is, that out of the four items set out in the plaint schedule, she bought item 4 and other properties from their previous owner one Subbarama Rao on 29-11-1935 subject to payment of a debt of Rs. 2,000/- due by the latter. In order to discharge that debt, she and her husband who is, however, said to have no interest in those properties mortgaged them without possession in favour of defendant 1 which is a Co-operative Society. Subsequently, some payments were made towards that debt and to recover the balance defendant 1 instituted proceedings before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and obtained a decree in R. C. S. Dispute No. 7/40-41 for Rs. 2,844/-. The said decree was put in execution before the Revenue authorities and the plaint schedule items were brought to sale....
R. Viswanathan and ors. Vs. S. Abdul Wajid and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant94; AIR1952Mys94
Balakrishnaiya, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the order passed on I. A. No. IV in Ex. Cases Nos. 106 and 107 of 49-50 on the file of the District Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore. The amounts claimed in the execution petitions represent costs awarded to the defendants in the proceedings culminating in the regular appeals of this Court. The objections of the judgment-debtors contained in I. A. No. 1 characterise the decrees under execution as a nullity on the ground of their having been passed by a tribunal, two of the Judges of which were not competent to hear the appeals and as such the decrees are wholly void, without jurisdiction and unenforceable. The trial Court overruled the objections on 19-12-1949 and directed execution to proceed.On 22-2-1950, the judgment-debtors filed the application, for review, under consideration (I. A. No. IV) in both the cases under Section 151 and Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The grounds urged in the said petition may be outlined ...
Biligiri Naika and ors. Vs. Sidda Setty and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Kant107; AIR1953Mys107; (1953)31MysLJ153
ORDER1. This petition arises from a final order under Section 144, Criminal P. C., passed by the Special First Class Magistrate, Nanjangud prohibiting absolutely the celebration of 'Konda' (Fire-treading) festival connected with the annual observance of a feast to propitiate the Deity, known as Mari or Patialadamma of Tagadur village. On the report of the police that party feelings and high tension between the Parivar and Ganigar communities did exist in respect of the celebration of the said festival and that there might be a likelihood of breach of public peace and tranquillity if the celebration is permitted, the learned Magistrate issued an order ex parte on 15-2-1951 prohibiting the junction for a period of two months from that date.2. The petitioners-first party belonging to the Parivar community applied under Section 144(5), Criminal P. C., to the Magistrate to rescind the ex parte order. The respondents representing the Ganigar community filed objections. No evidence was record...
In Re: Ramegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Kant45; AIR1953Mys45
1. The appellant has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Shimoga, for an offence under the First Part of Section 304 I. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for, 10 years; he has also been convicted under Section 14(d) of the Mysore Arms Act and sentenced to R. I. for one year, the sentences being directed to run concurrently. The case against him is that in the evening of 7-3-50 at about 5-15 P. M. he shot one Mullegowda who died the same night about three hours later.2. It has been contended by Mr. Krishnamurthi, learned counsel for the Appellant, thatthe evidence in the case is insufficient to holdthat it was the accused who shot Mullegowda.He relies strongly on the fact that the accused'sbrother one Sannegowda, who has been examined as D. W. 1 in the case, has unequivocallyadmitted that it was he that shot; that thelicense for the double-barrel gun from whichthe shots were fired stood in the name of Sanegowda; that it is natural to expect that hewould have used his own gun and that theac...
Javariah Vs. Abdul Rahiman and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant66; AIR1952Mys66; (1953)31MysLJ32
ORDER1. The order of the lower Court discloses that the plaint in the suit, S. C..NO. 1357/50-51 on the file of the Additional. Subordinate Judge, Mysore, was received by the learned Judge at 10-10 P.M., on the last day of limitation. Later the learned Judge dismissed the suit as barred by time on the ground that even assuming that the allegation in the affidavit filed by the plaintiff to explain the delay in filing the suit late on the last day of limitation to be true the presentation, of the plaint to the Judge at the late hour on the last day of limitation must be deemed to be after the period of limitation is over.2. The Question for consideration is whether a Judge can receive a plaint or a petition on the last day of limitation after the close of office hours. There is nothing in law to prevent the receipt of a plaint or a petition after the close of office hours and there is hardly any doubt that the practice of receiving plaints for proper reasons after the close of office hou...
Madina Rice Mills Vs. V. Sampangirmiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Kant66; AIR1953Mys66; ILR1952KAR230
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for damages for breach of contract. The contract is in writing marked Ex. A dated 2-10-1945 and signed by the parties. The terms of the contract arc expressed thus :'Quality:- Ground-nut oil. Quantity- 1001 one thousand and one maunds only. Rate 8-8-0 Rupees per maund of 23 Ibs. Ex. Mills. Time of delivery -- end of October 1945 Option - 'Nil. Terms of advance : 2000. Terms of payment : cash against delivery. 2. The receipt of Rs. 2,0007- as advance from the respondent is admitted and that the quantity supplied is only 167 maunds is not disputed. There is difference between the parties as to who is responsible for the rest of the stipulated quantity not being supplied, each party imputing default to the other. After exchange of notices the suit relating to this appeal was filed on 31-3-1948 for recovery of Rs. 107057- made up of Rs. 2000/- paid as advance, Rs. 375/- cost of barrels left with the defendant and Rs. 83307-as damages. Defenda...
S. Nanjundasetty Vs. Silpi Venkatachar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Kant122; AIR1953Mys122
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for redemption of a mortgage of a house situated in Bangalore City effected under a registered deed dated 15-8-1921 for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and prescribing a period of 26 years. Defendants 2 and 3 are plaintiff's sons and do not contest the suit. Defendant 1 while admitting the mortgage pleaded that the plaintiff has no right to redeem as the equity of redemption was purchased by defendant 1 in Ex. Case No. 1121 of 1936-37 in execution of a decree of the Court of Small Causes for payment of money due on a bond, against the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsiff and the decision is confirmed in appeal. It is contended that the sale has not the effect of extinguishing the mortgage and that plaintiff as a person having interest in the property is entitled to redeem. Prior to the present suit defendants 2 and 3 sued the present plaintiff and defendant 1 in O. S. 36 of29-30 impeaching his rights under ...
Ambammal Vs. J. Muddiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant65; AIR1952Mys65
Venkataramaiya, J.1. The property in dispute in both these appeals is a house situated in Ulsoor, Civil Station, Bangalore, which admittedly belonged to one Somappa. Alleging that he sold the house to Yellappa under a sale-deed, dated 8-12-1941 and that the latter sold it by means of a registered sale-deed, dated 29-10-1942 to Ambamma, she sued her vendor, the original owner and another Muddiah who was in possession of the property for recovery of possession of the same with mesne profits and damages. The other suit was filed by Somappa against Yellappa and Ambamma for cancellation of the sale-deed executed in favour' of the former on the ground that it was nominal. The house is said to be in possession of Somappa himself and Ambamma's right to the house by virtue of the subsequent sale is denied. The main points in controversy in the two suits were the genuineness of the transaction of sale by Somappa, 'bona fides' of the purchase by Ambamma and the bar of limitation to the suit by So...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »