Karnataka Court July 1951 Judgments
Hanuma Vs. Kencha Mariya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Kant119; AIR1951Mys119; ILR1952KAR44
Yasudevamurthy, J.1. The plaintiff and defendant 4 are brothers. On 25-8-1928 they and their father Munidasaiah, now dead, borrowed Rs. 100 from one Siddalingappa and executed a registered hypothecation bond agreeing to pay interest at Rs. 1-4-0 per cent. per mensem and to repay the principal and interest within one year. As security for the debt they mortgaged five items of their joint family properties including the piece of land concerned in this suit. The recital in Ex. I that mortgage deed is that the amount; was borrowed for family maintenance. On 18-1-1941 Munidasaiah alone sold the suit item to defendants 1 to 3 in this suit for Rs. 200. The sale was effected by a sale deed Ex. II in order to pay off the debt borrowed under Ex. I. Defendant 4 attested that document in token of his consent. The plaintiff has brought the present suit for a declaration that the sale of the plaint schedule land by defendant 4 in favour of defendant l to 3 does not bind his half share and for partit...
Tag this Judgment!Nanjegowda Vs. Channamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant40; AIR1952Mys40; ILR1951KAR530
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. The Plaintiff, who is the widow of one Marigowda, sued for a declaration that the plaint schedule properties belong to her and are in her possession and for a permanent injunction to restrain defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with her possession. She claims to have succeeded to those properties as heir to her husband. Defendant 1 claimed to have been adopted by the deceased Marigowda about 8 years before the suit which would be somewhere in 1938 and as such the adopted son was a nearer heir of the deceased. As such heir he Is said to have sold the suit properties to defendant 2. The learned Munsiff of Holenarasipur before whom the suit was filed held that the adoption relied on by defendant 1 was true and valid and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge of Hassan reversed that decision. He held that the alleged adoption did not take place and was not true. He also held that as the said adoption was said to have taken place after defendant 1 was marr...
Tag this Judgment!Madegowda Vs. R.L. Narayana Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant38; AIR1952Mys38
Mallappa, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree in R. A. No. 7 of 47-48 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Mysore passing a decree in favour of the plaintiff in reversal of the judgment and decree in O. S. nO. 230/ 45-46 on the file of the Second Munsiff, Mysore, who had dismissed the suit.2. One Siddegowda filed a suit in O. S. No. 67 of 34-35 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mysore, for a declaration that the properties mentioned, in Schedules A and B of the plaint filed by him belonged to his adoptive father and that while Schedule A, properties were In possession o his adoptive mother, the B Schedule properties were in possess ion of one Madegowda who was 2nd defendant in that case and who is 1st defendant in this citse. Madegowda contended that the A Schedule properties were in possession Of Sidde-gowda's natural father Kempegowda, while the B Schedule properties were in his possession. The adoption was found to be true, but the contention of ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Murthy and ors. Vs. H.P. Subba Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant61; AIR1952Mys61
Mallappa, J.1. S. A. No. 109 and S. A. 110 of 48-49 are appeals against the Judgment and decrees of the Subordinate Judge, Hassan, in Regular Appeals Nos. 134 and 135 of 46-47, confirming those of the Munsiff, Kassan, in O. S. 549 and 543 of 45-46 respectively. Both these suits were dismissed by the learned Munsiff.2. The plaintiffs who are the appellants in this Court filed the suits for partition and possession of the properties in dispute. They contend that they are the joint family properties of themselves, and of the first defendant, who was the Manager of their joint family. The other defendants in the two cases have only derived their title from the first defendant. The main contention of the contesting defendants is that the properties were forfeited to Government for default of payment of land revenue and as such the plaintiffs have no subsisting rights. It is unnecessary to consider other contentions of the contesting defendants, as the Courts below have upheld those contenti...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Mysore Vs. Lakshmamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Kant115; AIR1951Mys115
Yenkata Ramaiya, J.1. This is a reference by the learned District Magistrate, Shimoga, under Section 438, Criminal P. G. seeking orders in R. C. No. 136 of 50-51 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate, Sagar. The reason for the reference is that the learned Magistrate declined to entertain the charge-sheet presented by the Hosanagar Police alleging commission of offences by the accused on 21-5-1949 in Kote Shirur which at the time formed part of the Madras State but part of Mysore State at the time of the charge-sheet. The case was originally instituted in the Court of the Magistrate, Coondapur, and consequent on the passing of the Provinces and States (Absorption of Enclaves) Order, 1950, an objection was raised by the accused for the case being proceeded with before that Magistrate in South Oanara. The objection was upheld and the proceedings in the case before that Magistrate ceased. Subsequently the Hosanagar Police placed a charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate, Sa...
Tag this Judgment!R. Muninanjappa Vs. Agneesamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Kant113; AIR1951Mys113
Yasudevamurthy, J.1. Respondent 1 filed an application against the Appellant, who was respondent 1 in the lower Court and who is a permanent resident of Bangalore, in the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kolar District, for compensation on account of the death of her son and later added Respondent 3 as a party thereto. She alleged that her son had been employed by the Appellant in his lorry service which he was plying in the Kolar Gold Fields, and that on 26-2-49 while the lorry was so plying the deceased met with his death owing to an accident which took place during the course of his employment under the Appellant as his workman. The Appellant pleaded that he never employed the deceased and did note even know him and that there was no privity of contract between himself and the deceased. He no doubt owned the lorry but on the concerned date he had leased it out to Respondent 2 who was a motor driver for a period of one month from 5-2-1949 to 5-3-1949. He was ther...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. Abdul Salam
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Kant116; AIR1951Mys116; ILR1951KAR419
Yasudevamurthy, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the judgment of the learned Additional First Glass Magistrate, Ramanagaram in C. C. No. 1/50-51 acquitting the respondent one Abdul Salam who was charged before him for an offence under Section 5, Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act, 1949 read with Rules 19 and 26 of the Permit System Rules, 1949 framed under s. 4 of that Act.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The accused was a native of a village in Magadi taluk. He left India about 3 years ago to Pakistan. He returned to India to visit Nalabandvadi in Bangalore City under a temporary permit issued on 30-9-1949 by the High Commissioner for India at Karachi. Under that permit, the accused was allowed to stay in India for two months from 30-9-1949 to 80-11-1949. The accused was arrested on 27-2-1950 at Kudur in Magadi taluk on the ground that he had over-stayed in India after 30-11-1949 in contravention of Rule 19 of the Permit System Rules of 1949 and that he had visi...
Tag this Judgment!C.D. Narayana Rao Vs. Karibasappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Kant126; AIR1951Mys126
Yasudevamarthy, J.1. The plaintiff's suit for declaration of his title to and possession of a house in Chamarajanagar has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Mysore, and he has come up in appeal. His case is that the site on which the house is built belonged to a Bank in Chamarajanagar now in liquidation and was sold to defendant 1 for Rs. 100 on 25-11-1934; that thereafter defendant 2 constructed the house on the site about 12 years before suit for and on behalf of defendant 1; that defendant 2 was leasing it out to several lessees and that defendant 5 is one of such lessees having entered into possession under a lease deed dated 22-11-1943. Defendant 1 is said to have sold the house to the plaintiff by a sale deed dated 15-3-1947 for Rs. 4,000 and he was compelled to bring this suit as defendant 5 set up title in the house in defendant 4 and is resisting his claim.2. Defendants 1 and 2 have remained ex parte. Defendant 4 claims to have purchased the property from defendant 3 and...
Tag this Judgment!Basave Gowda Vs. Basave Gowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant1; AIR1952Mys1; (1952)30MysLJ192
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. This appeal was admitted to consider only a question of limitation which, though not advanced in the pleadings or the Courts below, is said to arise from facts about which there is no dispute and to be a manifest bar to the suit. The suit was to set aside alienations by the father in favour of a stranger, the date of the sale being 17-8-1936 more than 3 years prior to suit but within 12 years therefrom. The trial Court granted a decree to Plaintiffs and the decree is confirmed in appeal. The contention on behalf of the Appellant who is the alienee is that the suit is barred by virtue of Article 44 of the Limitation Act as it prescribes a period of only 3 years from the date the ward attains majority for suits by wards to set aside transfers of property by the guardian. Sri Kanakasabhapathy argues that inasmuch as the sale deed in favour of the Appellant purports to be executed by the father not merely on his behalf but as guardian of the minor sons, who are now th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›