Karnataka Court October 1952 Judgments
K.H. Kapiniah Vs. Fatimabi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Kant41; AIR1954Mys41
1. The appellant obtained a final decree against one Peer Sab on the foot of a hypothecation deed and thereafter filed an execution application for attachment and sale of the property now in dispute. He sought to proceed against it, though it was not one of the hypothecated properties, as the hypothecated properties had all been sold in execution of a decree obtained by a previous hypothecatee. The judgment-debtor was served with a notice, and it is clearly noted in the order-sheet that he had no objection to the attachment. Property was thereafter sold and the sale was confirmed on 9-1-1948. The respondent, who claims to be the widow of the judgment-debtor, states that a sale deed has been executed by him in her favour on 6-5-1948, which is long after the property was sold in execution of the decree against him. Her contention is that as no personal decree was obtained, the sale is invalid. 2. Her application to set aside the sale has been filed on 7-7-1943. It is difficult to see how...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Vasan Vs. Arthur H.E. Taylor
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant103; AIR1953Mys103
ORDER1. This is an application under Section 3, Contempt of Courts Act. In the affidavit filed along with the application the petitioner is stated to be an accused along with 25 others in C. C. No. 1221/51-52 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate, K. G. F., for alleged offences under Sections 34, 114, 120 and 436, I. P. C. The case against the accused in that case is said to be that A-1 to A-26 conspired together to cause mischief by fire in Nundydroog Mines and in pursuance of such conspiracy A-1 to A-4 and A-23 to A-26 caused such mischief by fire on 20-8-1951 resulting in damage to the mine and loss to the management of the value of about Rs. 20,000/-. While the matter was thus 'sub judice' Mr. Arthur H. E. Taylor who is the Managing Director of Messrs John Taylor and Sons, India Ltd., presiding over an Annual General Meeting of the Mining Companies held on 27th and 28-2-1951 is said to have stated as follows:'The regrettable outbreaks of fire which have occurred in the ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. V. Sampangiramiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant80; AIR1953Mys80
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against an order of acquittal passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Division, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the City Magistrate, Bangalore.2. The accused was a registered retail dealer in kerosene oil with his shops in New Tharagupet, Bangalore City. He was prosecuted for selling two tins of kerosene oil containing 8 gallons to one Channaveerappa, P.W. 8, for Rs. 19/- which was in excess of the price fixed and notified by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. In that connection he was also charged for having sold the kerosene oil to P.W. 8 who did not hold a ration card) having failed to issue him a receipt in respect of the same, for failing to maintain a daily sales account as he was required to do in respect of the sales of kerosene and for not exhibiting in his shop premises a statement required of him showing the stock, selling price and other particulars of kero...
Tag this Judgment!Periera Vs. H.K. Siddalingappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Kant35; AIR1954Mys35
1. The plaintiff's suit for damages by way of loss of rent occasioned to him by the defendants who were in unlawful possession of the plaint schedule property which he had purchased at a Revenue sale was decreed partially by the Second Munsiff, Mysore. On appeal the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mysore, dismissed the suit and the plaintiff has come up in second appeal.2. The suit was originally brought against two defendants who were brothers of one H.K. Sivanna who is now doad. The suit property was sold by the Revenue authorities for recovery of the balance of the House Building Advance which had been borrowed to put up the suit house by the deceased Sivanna who was an employee in the Mysore Government Electrical Department. After purchasing the property the plaintiff applied for delivery of possession but he was prevented from taking possession on account of obstruction caused by the defendants, who had also field a suit for declaration of their rights and for permanent injunction a...
Tag this Judgment!HussaIn and anr. Vs. Rahim Khan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Kant24; AIR1954Mys24
1. The plaintiff is the brother and defendant 1 is the widow of one Dilawar Khan to whom the plaint schedule house belonged. The plaintiff sued defendant 1, and defendant 2 who has purchased it from her, for partition and possession of his 3/4th share in it. Defendant 1 pleaded that her husband had settled 39 tolas of gold on her as her mahar or dower; she had borrowed and spent some monies for meeting the medical charges and funeral expenses of the deceased. She had also paid some arrears of Municipal assessment due on the property. In order to pay off those debts and for her maintenance she had sold and conveyed all her rights in the suit property including her right to retain possession till she was paid off, to defendant 2 for Rs. 1000/- and delivered over possession of the same to him. She, and therefore, her alienee defendant 2 were entitled to retain possession till the plaintiff was paid off his proportionate share of the dower debt. Defendant 2 also raised the same defence. 2....
Tag this Judgment!Bathalur Naranappa Vs. Uppacharla Gurappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Kant23; AIR1954Mys23; ILR1953KAR344; (1954)32MysLJ170
1. The plaintiff brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 272-8-0 principal, Rs. 11/- interest and Rs. 2-8-0 notice charges, in all Rs. 286/-due on accounts in respect of certain transactions carried on by defendants 1 and 2 with the plaintiff from 29-10-1938 to 16-8-1947. Defendant 3 is also sought to be made liable on the ground that he was a member of the joint family with the other defendants and it was expressly pleaded that defendants 1 and 2 were the managers of the family. Defendant 1 was ex parte. Defendants 2 and 3 totally denied that they had any transactions with the plaintiff and defendant 2 pleaded that he was an agriculturist which plea was upheld by the learned Munsiff. They also pleaded that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation. The learned Munsiff who heard the suit believed plaintiff 1 and his witness P. W. 2 and held that the transactions had been proved and that all the defendants were liable. He also found that the suit was in time. But on appeal by the def...
Tag this Judgment!Hutchegowda Vs. H.M. Basaviah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Kant29; AIR1954Mys29
1. The case of the plaintiff-appellant is that the defendant-respondent agreed to sell an acre out of the land purchased by the latter in a revenue sale and executed the agreement produced along with the plaint. That agreement is dated 1-8-1942. It is also alleged in the plaint that in June 1945 there was a panchayathi in which the defendant received Rs. 82/- being the consideration amount for the land which had to be sold, and agreed again to sell the property to him. The defendant admitted that he executed the first agreement but denied the second agreement and also pleaded that the suit is barred by time. It will be noticed that neither the learned Munsif nor the learned Subordinate Judge has found that the second agreement set up by the plaintiff is true. It will also be noticed that while according to the plaint the sum of Rs. 82/- was paid to the defendant, the notice issued toy the plaintiff before the suit was filed, makes it clear that no such money was paid to the defendant. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›