Karnataka Court January 1952 Judgments
Krishnamurthy Vs. Krishna Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Kant82; AIR1952Mys82
1. The plaintiff is the assignee on 6/10/1946 of a mortgage with possession from the second defendant who is the mortgagee from defendant 1 for Rs. 250/- under a registered mortgage deed dated 12/3/1906; he prayed for a decree against the mortgage property and against defendant 1 personally and if the amount was not so realised against defendant 2 personally. The plea of defendant 1 is that defendant, 2 received the entire sum of Rs. 250/- in full settlement of the debt under a receipt dated 3-1-1942. Defendant 2 remained ex parte. The trial Court decreed the suit against both the defendants. On appeal the decree was confirmed as against defendant 2 but was set aside as against the mortgage property and defendant 1. This appeal is preferred against the decision of the appellate court by the plaintiff.2. The main point urged by the learned advocate for the appellant is that the receipt of discharge is inadmissible and even otherwise it cannot extinguish the mortgage as it is unregistere...
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Periyanayakan and anr. Vs. Government of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Kant84; AIR1952Mys84
ORDER1. The petitioner is prosecuted for an offence under the Mysore Mines Act. The objection taken 'in limine', to the case on the ground that the Act the provision of which is alleged to be contravened has become void on account of the provisions of the Constitution and the Part B States Act, has been over-ruled by the trial Magistrate. Petitioner seeks revision of this order and proceedings being quashed.2. There is nothing in the Constitution of India which renders the Mysore Act 'ipso facto' void. No. 23 in State List is Regulation of Mines and Mineral Development subject to the provisions of List l with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union. No. 54 in List 1 is Regulation of Mines and Mineral Development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the Control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest. It is clear from this that the State is competent to enact laws for Mining and Mineral Dev...
Tag this Judgment!Nanjundegowda Vs. Rangegowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant138; AIR1953Mys138
Mallappa, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of plaintiff's title in respect of 4 Hems of properties mentioned in the plaint schedule. The plaintiff has succeeded in both the Courts below to the extent that there has been a declaration of his half right to items 1, 2 and 4 as he is the adopted son of the first defendant.2. The short point for consideration in this appeal is whether the sale of item 3 for Rs. 450/- under Exhibit IV on 5-5-35 by the first defendant is binding on his adopted son, the-plaintiff. The sale-deed was executed for a consideration of Rs. 450/- as already stated, out of which a sum of Rs. 48/- was paid in cash and, the balance was utilised for discharging the debt due under Ext. I. Ext. I is a hypothecation-deed executed by the first defendant himself for clearing a debt due under the original of Ext. V executed on 5-4-22. According to the recital in Ext. V, the debt was contracted for the expenses of taking the plaintiff in adoption and for pu...
Tag this Judgment!A. Srikantaiah Vs. Bansilal Abirchand and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Kant141; AIR1952Mys141
ORDERBalakrishnayya, J.1. The petitioner is an Advocate of this court who defended respondent 2, one Gulam Ahmed, against whom a creditor's petition in insolvency was filed before the District Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, in I. P. No. I of 1348. The insolvency petition was dismissed on 10-1-1949 with costs and the Advocate's fee was fixed at Rs. 25/-. On 24-10-1949, the petitioner prayed for the intervention of the District Court under the summary jurisdiction to direct the Official Receiver for payment of Rs. 3000/-to him being the fees stipulated by his client for defending him in the insolvency proceedings. The basis of his claim as stated in the petition is that the said Gulam Ahmed had agreed to pay a fee of Rs. 3000/- and accordingly in January 1948, the said Gulam Ahmed delivered a cheque on the Bank of Mysore, Ltd. for Rs. 3000/- towards his fee and the cheque remained uncashed, that after the petition was dismissed on 10-1-1949 a fresh cheque for a similar amount was issue...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanappa Vs. D.V. Narayanamurthy and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Kant77; AIR1952Mys77
ORDER1. The petitioner is the first party in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 12 of 1942-43, filed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Special First Class Magistrate, Madhugiri. The learned Magistrate being unable to decide which of the party was in possession of the property directed under Section 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure that attachment to continue and appointed the Amildar, Madhugiri to take possession as the Receiver.2. On 27-6-1946, the respondents presented an application on behalf of the second party members from which this revision petition arises praying that the attachment be withdrawn and the Receiver be directed not to deal with the property. The petitioner objected on the ground that the application is not maintainable as the present respondents were not parties to the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate overruled the objection and ordered that the attachment be withdrawn by acce...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshman Vs. Govt. of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-1952
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1522
ORDERBalakrishnaiya, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 379, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months by the Second Magistrate, Chttaldrug. On appeal, the conviction has been upheld but the sentence reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one month by the District Magistrate. This revision petition is preferred against that order.2. A buffalo and its calf which were said to have been missing from their owner on the night of 15.10.1950, were found in the possession of the accused and seized on 17.10.1950. The plea of the accused is that the complaint was false and in his statement he denied the ownership of the complain-ant and maintained that the cattle belonged to his father who is said to have obtained them from one Hanumantha. Both the courts found that the cattle belonged to the complainant, P.W. 2, and the ownership set up by the accused is false.3. Sri V. Krishnamurthy, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, contended that the ev...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›