Karnataka Court December 1952 Judgments
K.P. Chandrasekharappa Vs. Government of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1955Kant26; AIR1955Mys26; ILR1953KAR563
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. This is an appeal under the Indian Succession Act against an order dismissing the application of the Appellant for grant of Letters of Administration with respect to properties of his deceased sister in the Civil Station, Banglore. The applicant is a Hindu governed by the Hindu Law as in force in Mysore. His sister, it is said, at first married a Hindu but after his death embraced Mahomadanism and married a Muslim of Civil Station and lived with him. H. M. Yunus, her Muslim husband died in 1939 and she in January 1947 leaving no children and intestate properties she was possessed of at the time of her death are according to the petition, of considerable value. The application was opposed by the brothers of the Muslim husband of the deceased. The learned District Judge held that neither the Appellant by virtue of his relationship by birth nor others on account of relationship to the husband could claim the letters. The order is not challenged by any one except the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kesave Seethamma Vs. Bombay Life Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Kant134; AIR1954Mys134
Vasudevamurthy, J1. The plaintiff is the widow of one K. Srinivasaiya who died on 8-9-1945 at Koppa. He had insured his life with the defendant company for Rs. 3000/- and the plaintiff sued to recover that sum after the death of the insured. The defendant company denied their liability to pay any sum under the policies on three grounds: first that the insured had suppressed certain material facts and had made some false and fraudulent statements in his proposal and personal declaration forms, which circumstance vitiated the policy; secondly, that the insured had committed suicide and as the same was within 13 months of the date of insurance the contract under the insurance policy had become void and could not be enforced: and thirdly, that the insured had speculated on his life by insuring for much larger sums than he could afford and his taking up the insurance policies of the company in those circumstances was not a 'bona fide' act on his part. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Chick...
Tag this Judgment!S. Krishnappa Vs. Kishenlal and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Kant140; AIR1954Mys140
1. In this case one Sevaram Lunidaram Sait obtained a decree for money on 21.2-1938. He applied for execution in Ex. 954/ 39-40 on 13-5-1940 and it was dismissed on 18-9-1940. Than an uncle of the present respondents, who were then minors, filed Ex. 325/40-41 and the same was dismissed on 22-10-41. On that date it is to be noted that both the respondents were minors. The first decree-holder appears to have attained majority on 27-3-1946 and made the present application Ex. 461/48-49 on 26-3-1949. The judgment-debtor pleaded that the execution application was barred by time, the same not having been filed within three years of the dismissal of the first execution application on 18-9-1940. The Second Munsiff, Bangalore, upheld that contention and held that the execution application was barred. On appeal the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, reversed that decision and the judgment-debtor has come up in second appeal.2. Mr. D.S. Gundachar, learned Counsel for the appellant, re...
Tag this Judgment!Channegowda Vs. Nageshappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant167; AIR1953Mys167; ILR1953KAR546
ORDER1. The petitioner brought a suit in O. S. No. 212 of 1944-45 for setting aside an order passed in an earlier miscellaneous case in the Court of the First Munsiff of Mysore who decreed it with costs. On appeal in R. A. No. 84 of 1946-47 by the defendant the Subordinate Judge set aside that decision and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout. A second appeal was filed against that decision in S. A. No. 23 of 47-48 and was heard by Venkata Ramaiya and Puttaraj Urs JJ. They were of the opinion that the suit was to be disposed of afresh after passing orders on an application which had been made by the plaintiff for amendment of his plaint and after giving an opportunity to any other creditor to intervene in the suit. They therefore set aside the decrees of the Courts below and remanded the case to the trial Court for disposal. As regards costs they made a direction as follows 'the costs of this appeal will abide the result'. The suit ultimately ended in favour of the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatiah Vs. Kalyanamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant92; AIR1953Mys92; ILR1953KAR357
ORDERVasudevamurthy, J.1. I and ray learned brother Mallappa J. referred to the Full Bench two questions of law arising in this second appeal. The matter was heard by the Full Bench of all the Judges of this Court and orders were reserved. 2. Such a reference is governed by Section 15(2), Mysore High Court Act, I of 1884. As that sub-section stood at the time of the reference any Bench could refer to a Full Bench any question of law or usage having the force of law, the construction of any document or admissibility of any evidence in any proceeding pending before it on which there was no further appeal under the law for the time being in force. 3. Under Articles 133 and 134 of the Constitution of India appeals have now been provided to the Supreme Court against the decisions of this Court in civil and criminal cases though subject to certain limitations. A question has been raised as to whether a reference could have been made under Section 15(2) in view of this circumstances. There ap...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mysore Vs. C.V. Gopala Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Kant117; AIR1954Mys117
ORDER1. In the course of the trial of the case against respondent for offences of cheating, forgery etc., the prosecution sought to prove the writing of accused by evidence of an expert based on comparison of the writing in question with that obtained during investigation, from the accused. This was objected to as being repugnant to Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and tantamount to compelling the accused to give incriminatory evidence. The objection was upheld. Later the prosecution requested the Court to call upon the accused to give his writing in Court and make it available for comparison by the expert. This was also rejected. Hence this petition.2. Whatever may be said in regard to the writing given to the Police, there is preponderance of authority to justify the later application made to the Magistrate. The cases are collected in --'Golam Rahman v. The King' : AIR1950Cal66 (A). The effect of these as stated in the head note is:'Section 73, Evidence Act is quite general...
Tag this Judgment!M. Nagendriah Vs. M. Ramachandriah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant108; AIR1953Mys108
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. The plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of the District Judge, Bangalore for a declaration that he is entitled to a half share in the plaint schedule properties and for being put in possession of his half share after division. The defendant denied that he and the plaintiff were members of a joint family. He disclaimed interest in certain items which the plaintiff alleged belonged jointly to himself and the defendant and he claimed that he himself was the sole and absolute owner of the other items described in the schedule to the plaint and was in exclusive possession of those items. The plaintiff paid a fixed court-fee of Rs. 50/- on the plaint under Article 11(B) of Schedule II, Mysore Court-fees Act. This was at that stage proper and sufficient and the case reported in -- '44 Mys HCR 203' (A) where it has been held that where a co-owner, co-sharer or co-tenant alleges that he is in joint possession of the property in suit and wants his share to be separated and...
Tag this Judgment!Padmanabha Rao and ors. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant125; AIR1953Mys125; ILR1953KAR201
Medapa, C.J.1. The Special First Class Magistrate of Ramanagaram committed the appellants (accused 1 to 4 in Cr. A. No. 39/52-53 and accused 5 in Cr. A. No. 42/52-53) along with six others to take their trial before the Court of Session, Bangalore, accused 1 to 11 for an offence under Section 143; accused 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 for offences under Sections 149 and 302; accused 2 and 3 for an offence under Section 302; and accused 1, 4 and 8 for offences under Sections 109 and 302, Penal Code. The case of the prosecution was that, on the night of 12-8-1951, the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at Singarajapura village in Channapatna Taluk with the common object of murdering S. N. Narasimhamurthy Rap, Proprietor of the 'Standard Motor Service', Singarapura, due to the ill-will that existed between them, that in prosecution of that common object the accused armed themselves with deadly weapons, chased deceased Narasimha-murthy Rao when he was returning from Aniyur...
Tag this Judgment!Singri Vs. Doddiah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Kant32; AIR1954Mys32; ILR1953KAR544; (1954)32MysLJ82
ORDER1. This is a revision petition against the order passed by the Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in Mis. No. 231/49-50. An ex parte decree was obtained against the deceased father of the petitioner in S. C. 1335 of 1948-49, and after the death of father the petitioner has filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. for setting aside the ex parte decree. Petitioner is a minor and his mother is her next friend. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner's mother came to know of the decree only when a notice was served on her in the Execution Case on 22-2-1950. The learned Subordinate Judge (Court of Small Causes) has rightly come to the conclusion that the service on the petitioner's father was not sufficient and that the petitioner's guardian came to know of the petition within thirty days from the date on which the application to set aside the ex parte decree was filed. But he has dismissed the petition on the ground that an application by a legal represen...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Srikantaiah Vs. M. Hanumantha Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Kant138; AIR1954Mys138
1. The appellant filed a suit for damages against 1st respondent, who is the owner of a bus, and respondent 2, who is its driver, on the ground of injuries caused to his left-arm and left finger while he was travelling in their bus, and it is said the bus swerved and passed close to the side of a tree causing the aforesaid injuries to the plaintiff. The evidence of the plaintiff and his brother-in-law P.W. 4, discloses that the bus took a turn from the road in trying to pass two bullock carte which were going in front and that the accident occurred at that time. The evidence of the disinterested witness, D.W. 1, who was sitting in the front seat of the bus by the side of the driver, discloses that one of the bullock carts turned across the road leaving no space for the bus to move, with the result that the driver took a turn to a side, and finding a tree in front, he turned to the left. When he was thus taking the bus back to the road, after avoiding the cart one of the sides of the bu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »