Karnataka Court September 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.
K. Muniyappa Vs. M.A. Hanumantha and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Kant43; AIR1953Mys43
ORDER1. The petitioner filed a suit for redemption and for being put in possession of second item of the plaint schedule property in consequence of redemption, and alleged that he was already in possession of the first item. The judgment of the learned Munsiff was in favour of the plaintiff and as is clear from the judgment and the order now under revision, by a clerical error he directed that the plaintiff must be put in possession of the first item instead of mentioning that he must be put in possession of the second item. The mistake naturally crept into the decrees drawn up in the case. It is contended that the petitioner discovered the mistake only when he had to file an execution application. A review petition was filed, but it was filed after the period of limitation. An application under Section 152, Civil P.C., was also filed. 2. It is a clear case of clerical error and I am inclined to think that the learned Munsiff had ample jurisdiction under Section 152, Civil P.C., to mak...
G. Rajagopalachar and anr. Vs. Government of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant103; AIR1952Mys103
ORDER1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 10 of the Mysore High Court Act and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against an order of the District Judge, Bangalore, refusing to stay an enquiry that is being conducted by him in Miscellaneous case No. 134 of 50-51. The enquiry which was ordered on 7-7-50 is being made under section 11. of the Mysore Legal Practitioners Act, III of 1884, against the two petitioners who are advocates of this court practising in Tumkur and Bangalore respectively.2. For the petitioners their learned Counsel, Mr. M. P. Somasekhara Rao contends, that the Bar Councils Act of 1926 and the Legal Practitioners Act of 1879 have been since extended to Mysore by the Part B States (Laws) Act of 1951. The effect of such extension of these Acts is, according to him, that the Mysore Legal Practitioners Act has ceased to be in force jn Mysore and the present enquiry which was ordered by this Court under t...
Hanumantha and ors. Vs. Gowdaiah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Kant44; AIR1953Mys44; ILR1952KAR172; (1952)30MysLJ115
1. The dispute in this case relates to lands in a jodi village Dondenaballi, Magadi Taluk, of which Defendant 12 is the khayamguttadar. Survey & Settlement are not introduced in this village taut what is called Pahani Soodu was prepared in 1916. As purchasers from the jodidar under a registered sale deed dated 11-1-1944 of an extent of about 9 acres in Survey No. 59 and part of S. No. 62 and as lessees of the rest of S. No. 62 the plaintiffs sued the defendants for declaration of their tight to the said lands and setting aside the order under Section 145, Criminal P. C. passed in favour of defendants 1 to 11. They also sought for payment of Rs. 80/- in deposit in the criminal Court.2. Defendant 12 admitted the sale and conceded the claim but defendants 1 to 11 pleaded that the lands are not alienable as these were given away as Inam for pateli service and as kodige, that the defendants are in possession of the lands in their own right each holding portions thereof and that plaintiffs a...
Kala Vs. Javaramma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant47; AIR1952Mys47; ILR1952KAR151; (1953)31MysLJ70
Mallappa, J.1. This is an appeal against the order in R. A. 120/48-49 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Hassan, confirming the order of the learned Munsif, Holenarasipur, in Execution Case No. 03 of 1944-15. 2. The Judgment-debtor in Exn. 93/44-45 filed an application I. A. No. I, under Order 21, Rule 90 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code to set aside a sale on the ground of irregularity and fraud in the publication and conduct or the sale held in that case. He filed also an application under Section. 18 of the Limitation Act alleging that he was fraudulently kept out from the knowledge of the sale and that he came to know of the property having been sold only when the purchaser attempted to take delivery of the property about three days prior to the filing of the application. Both the Courts below have found that there was fraud in the publication and conduct of the sale with the result that a valuable property was knocked off for a nominal sum and that on account of...
The Commissioner of Labour in Mysore, Banglore Vs. the Mysore Iron and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant21; AIR1952Mys21; ILR1952KAR83
Balakrishnaiya, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a civil petition No. 61/48-49 filed before this Court by the respondent under Section 45, Spe-cific Relief Act, praying for the issue of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Commissioner of Labour in Mysore to ascertain from the Mysore Iron and Steel works, Bhadravathi, whether certain demands of the respondent made under Section 10(3) of the Mysore Labour Act 1942 would be agreed to by the said Iron and Steel works. The learned Judge of this Court who heard the petition passed an order directing the issue of a writ as prayed for. It is against that order that this appeal has been preferred. 2. The respondent in this case is the Mysore Iron and Steel Works Labour Association. It is a registered body that came into existence under the provisions of Section 3, Mysore Labour Act which came into force in January 1942. In pursuance of Section 9(2) of the Labour Act, the standing orders of the Mysore Iron and Steel Works were settled ...
K. Chikkiah Setty and ors. Vs. Aswathanarayana Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant63; AIR1952Mys63
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. The question for decision in this case is whether a Judgment-debtor who has conveyed the property by executing a sale-deed in favour of a third person can apply under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure for cancellation of a sale of the same subsequently held in execution of the decree. The answer to this depends on the construction of the words 'person whose interests are affected by the sale' in the said Rule which runs thus:'Where any immovable property has been sold; in execution of a decree, the decree-holder, or any person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it.'The circumstances under which the question has arisen briefly are that in execution of a mortgage-decree in Execution Case No. 391 of 40-41 on the file of the Munsiff of Dodballapur certain properties ...
K. Mohamed Ali Vs. Govinde Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Kant56; AIR1953Mys56; (1952)30MysLJ190
ORDER1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Munsiff, Chickmagalur, in Order Rule 138 of 50-51 holding that the defendant-respondent can plead that he is an agriculturist under the Agriculturists' Relief Act.2. The suit filed is for the recovery of some livestock including four bullocks and a cart of the value of the same. According to the facts of the case aft set out in the plaint they belonged to the defendant and. they were sold by him to the plaintiff. They were, however, left with the defendant for use in his lands as the defendant was a tenant of the Fame. It is contended that this is not a suit in which the defendant can claim to be an agriculturist under, the Agriculturists' Relief Aci, as this is not a suit for money at all, and secondly as under any circumstances it is not a suit for recovery of what is lent or advanced to the defendant.3. As regards the first point, according to the definition of money as given in the Agriculturists' Relief. Act, 'Money shal...
Venkategowda and ors. Vs. Appajigowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant4; AIR1952Mys4; (1953)31MysLJ162
ORDERMallappa, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order in Miscellaneous No. 16 of 47-48 dropping the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that both the parties are absent.2. The proceedings were instituted on 18-11-1947 and it is in March 1951 that the proceedings were dropped on the ground referred to above. A perusal of the order sheet shows that the case was not taken up as the Judge was busy with other cases or for the reason that one or the other of the lawyers wanted an adjournment. It is unfortunate that these proceedings were allowed to be dragged on for about three years and it is equally unfortunate that the learned Magistrate should have found a way of disposing of the case in a summary manner, particularly when the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to drop the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C. as he has done.3. This case is typical of a good number of cases under Section 145 Criminal P.C. that are pending for a numb...
Venkategowda Vs. Basavagowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant3; AIR1952Mys3; (1953)31MysLJ19
1. This appeal arises from an application filed by Appellant under section 47, Civil Procedure Code, for an order that he is not liable and his properties should not be proceeded against for recovery of money due under a decree passed against his brother on the fact of a hypothecation bond. Subsequent to the decree, the Appellant's brother died and thereupon his sons and the appellant were brought on record as legal representatives in Execution Case No. 666 of 1934-35. The Appellant objected to his being treated as a legal representative but the objection was overruled by me Executing Court and the order of the Executing Court was confirmed in appeal with a remark hat the binding nature of the debt should be established in order to render Appellant's share in the mortgaged properties liable. In the application filed by Appellant it is alleged that the decree is not binding on him as it related to a debt which was not for family benefit or legal necessity. The decree-holder contended th...
B. Shivaramiah Vs. Rangamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Kant32; AIR1952Mys32; (1952)30MysLJ196
Mallappa, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment in R. A. 66 of 1946-17 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment in O. S. No. 168 of 1945-46 on the file of the Second Munsiff, Bangalore. 2. The suit was for declaration of plaintiff's title to and for possession of the suit property with mesne profits. It is not disputed that Venkatappa was the original owner of the property and that he under a will bequeathed the suit property to his grand daughter the first defendant and her husband deceased Ramiah, with a life estate to Thimmi the mother of the first defendant. Thimmi and Ramiah are dead. The plaintiff claims the properties as the adopted son of Ramiah. The learned Munsiff held that the adoption was not true and dismissed plaintiff's suit. The learned Subordinate Judge holds that under the will the first defendant and her husband took a joint tenancy and as she was the survivor of the whole property, the adopt...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »