Karnataka Court August 1951 Judgments
Thimmiah Vs. Rangiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant67; AIR1952Mys67; ILR1952KAR167
Venkataramaiya, J. 1. This case presents a striking illustration of the dilatory tactics practised by the Judgment-Debtor to successfully delay and, if possible, also defeat the realisation of the fruits of the decree.1a. The decree execution of which is sought was passed so long back as 6-6-1934. The original Decree-holder, alter one or two infructuous attempts to recover the money passed away. Apparently, his legal representatives having found it difficult to realise the amounts due under the decree assigned it in favour of the appellant. The appellant thereon applied for execution and in the course of the proceedings in Execution Case No. 521 of 41-42 on 26-3-1943 the assignment was recognised. Execution Case No. 238 of 44-45, which was subsequently filed was disposed of on 1-3-1946 in these words:'Steps not taken. Decree-holder absent. No witnesses. The objections of the judgment-debtors are left open to be agitated later. Execution petition dismissed.'1-b. Finally. Execution Case ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kamesam Vs. S. Rangaraju Naidu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Kant90; AIR1953Mys90
ORDER1. This is a Revision Petition against the order in O. S. No. 27/49-50 on the file of the principal District Judge, Bangalore, on I. A. I, directing a stay of the suit pending decision of O. S. No. 8 of 1947, a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Salem. It will be noticed that a suit, was filed in the year 1947 by the plaintiff in Salem on the foot of a document, and another suit was filed in respect of the same cause of action and based on the same document, in O. S. No. 27 of 1949-50 on the file of the District Judge, Bangalore. The point that the two suits are based on the same cause of action is not denied, though much more than what is claimed in this suit has been claimed in the suit filed in the Sub-Court, Salem. The question whether a suit could be filed at Salem is under consideration and the defendant in this case has filed an application for stay of the present suit till that case is disposed of, under Sections 10 and 151, C. P. C.2. It is contended that t...
Tag this Judgment!Khatoon Bee Vs. Ameena Bi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Kant89; AIR1953Mys89; ILR1952KAR70
1. The appellant is the 2nd wife of one Mohamad Sheriff Saheb who died in Civil Station on 7-7-1944 leaving besides the appellant and her two children, the third wife by name Amina Bee, children by her and some children by his deceased first wife. The third wife and her children sued the children of Mohamad Sheriff by the first wife, the appellant and her children for partition and possession of the share due to them under the Muhammadan Law in the properties of Mohamad Sheriff set forth in two schedules, Schedule A relating to items of immoveable property and Schedule B movables. The value of the movables is stated to be more than a lakh. The appellant who was defendant 1 in the suit claimed item No. 5 of the A schedule as her absolute property not liable for partition & pressed for an item not included in A schedule being added to the properties to be partitioned. The omitted item stands in the name of plaintiff 1. Both the pleas were negatived by the learned District Judge and this ...
Tag this Judgment!C.N. Hassankhan Vs. Government of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant39; AIR1952Mys39
ORDER1. One Babasab was coining on a bicycle when he was stopped by the police near the Municipal Toll Gate at Chikmagalur and was found to be carrying six brandy bottles in a cloth bag tied to the handle bar. He was thereupon prosecuted for an offence under Section 4-1 (a), Clauses (2) and (3) of the Mysore Prohibition Act XXXVII of 1948 before the Munsiff-Magistrate, Chickmagalur. He was convicted on a plea of guilty and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 30/-. The Munsiff Magistrate further ordered that ,the bottles of brandy and the cycle which had been marked as M.O. 1 should be confiscated to Government. This order was passed on 6-11-1950. On the same day the Petitioner one C.N. Hassan Khan presented in Court an application in which he stated that the cycle M.O. 1 belonged to him alone, that he had merely entrusted it to the accused to be delivered at his house, that in the evening when he returned home he learnt on enquiry that the accused was being prosecuted and that the bicycle had...
Tag this Judgment!H.K. Ramachandra Rao Vs. H.K. Subba Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant25; AIR1952Mys25
Mallappa, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment in R. A. No. 138 of 46-47 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mysore, confirming the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 84 of 45-46 on the file of the Munsiff, Hunsur, who had dismissed the suit. 2. The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit under appeal for declaration of title to, and possession of the entire suit property which his deceased father had purchased in execution of a decree obtained against the father of first defendant alone. This was filed more than a year after a miscellaneous petition, filed by him under Order 21, Rule 97 for removal of obstruction of defendants to his obtaining possession, was dismissed on his failure to appear before Court with his witnesses to adduce evidence in support of his case. Order 21, Rule 99 states that where the Court is satisfied that, the resistance or obstruction was occasioned by any person other than the judgment-debtor claiming in good faith to be in possession of the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataramana Vs. Government of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant34; AIR1952Mys34; (1953)31MysLJ97
ORDER1. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 498, Penal Code, by the First Class Magistrate, Ramanagaram, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. On appeal, the conviction and sentence have been confirmed. It is against that judgment, the revision to this Court is preferred by the petitioner.2. Both the lower Courts have considered the evidence in detail and reached the conclusion. A few salient features relating to the case may be stated in order to test the appreciation of evidence. Shivalingappa, the petitioner, is alleged to have enticed away one Nanjamma, the wife of the complainant, and detained her at Bangalore with intent to have illicit intercourse with her. The complainant, the husband of the said Nanjamma, who is examined as P. W. 8 has sworn to the fact that the accused was frequenting his house and talking to his wife in familiar terms; in consequence thereof he had expressly prohibited him from visiting his hous...
Tag this Judgment!Hutchegowda Vs. Chennigegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Kant49; AIR1953Mys49; ILR1952KAR49
Mallappa, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment in R. A. 51 of 46-47 On the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mysore, dismissing the appeal filed against O. S. 331 of 1944-45 on the file of the Second Munsiff, Mysore who had decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit for declaration of title and for possession of the plaint schedule properties as prayed for. 2. The case of the plain tiff-respondent is that the suit properties belonged to Channi-gegowda. His widow Thimmi alias Helavi took plaintiff's father in adoption and executed a registered deed to evidence the same. Helvi was defendant's father's sister and this is how plaintiff and his mother came to be, after the death of his father, under the protection of defendant's father. Helvi died while they were living with defendant's father who began to look after the properties for and on behalf of the plaintiff. After the death of the father of the defendant, the suit was instituted for declaration of plaintiff's title and for possessio...
Tag this Judgment!Basappa Vs. Nanjamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Kant122; AIR1951Mys122
ORDERMallappa, J.1. This is an application under Order 38, Rule 5, read with Sections 107 and 151, Criminal P. C., for attachment before judgment of the properties described in the schedule, on the ground that the respondent defendant is about to dispose of the properties and that her doing so will leave the plaintiff-appellant without any adequate means of recovering the decree amount in case he obtains a decree in this Court. An affidavit has been filed by the applicant and in the first portion of it he sets out under what circumstances he had got the properties attached in the lower Court. The suit was later dismissed and the order of attachment of that Court has come to an end.2. The point for consideration is whether there is now any reason for attaching before judgment the properties of the defendant. As stated in Order 38, Rule 5, the Court must be satisfied by affidavit dr otherwise, first, that the defendant is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property or that ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Gopalappa Vs. Shivananda Rice and Flour Mills and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant20; AIR1952Mys20
ORDER1. This is a revision petition against the order of the learned District Judge, Shimoga, in R. A. No. 24 of 50-51 refusing to pass an order of refund of the court fee paid on the memo of appeal after having, in the interest of justice, remanded the suit to the trial Court for fresh disposal. The portion of Section 10, Court fees Act, relevant to this case is : 'If an appeal or plaint, which has been rejected by the lower Court on any of the grounds mentioned in the Code of Civil Procedure, is ordered to be received, or it a suit is remanded in appeal, on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 562 of the same Code, for a second decision by the lower Court, the Appellate Court shall grant to the appellant a certificate, authorising him to receive back from the Deputy Commissioner the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of appeal.' * * * * *It has to be said that according to Section 562, Civil P. C., as it stood at the time the Court-fees Act Was enacted, the grounds mention...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Krishnaji Vs. Anjuman E. Islamia
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant14; AIR1952Mys14; ILR1952KAR102
Vasudevamurthy, J. 1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiffs in two capacities--(1) one under Section 92, Civil P. C., after obtaining the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District, and (a) in a representative character under Order l, Rule 8, Civil P. C. After the suit was filed, the plaintiffs made an application to the Court under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. 0. and the Court ordered the publication of usual notices inviting the inhabitants of Shimoga town to join in the suit either as plaintiffs or as defendants.2. The property involved in this litigation is a large piece of land situated in Shimoga Town in which there is a gymnasium or talimkhana and some shops on the edge of the open space abutting the road which belonged to the institution of Talimkhana. The property is apparently of considerable value as the land is situate in a prominent part of the Town of Shimoga and is capable of being largely developed for the benefit of the persons wh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »