Karnataka Court February 1952 Judgments
S. Ahmed Khan Vs. Turup Mohamed Hayat
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant4; AIR1953Mys4
1. The plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif, Civil Station, for the recovery of Rs. 3,000/- from the defendant. His case was that he and the defendant agreed to run a taxi in partnership and for that purpose obtained a Ford V '8' Sedan on pledge for Rs. 8,500/- from one Joseph. The plaintiff is said to have contributed Rs. 3,000/- and the defendant Rs. 5,500/-. They began to ply the taxi for hire from 10-3-1945; the plaintiff was looking after the service and paying the defendant a ten annas share of the profits. The terms of the partnership were later on reduced to writing in the form of an agreement Ex. A dated 1-7-45 which was prepared in duplicate with a copy to each party. Subsequently the defendant is said to have sent for the car to his house on 3-12-46 and returned it to Joseph and collected from him the entire sum of Rs. 8,500/- without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff. On demand by the plaintiff the defendant is said to have agreed to pay him Rs. 3,000...
Tag this Judgment!Movie Enterprises and anr. Vs. M.S. Periasamy Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Kant78; AIR1952Mys78
1. A question of some importance was raised by the respondents about the scope of Order 41, Rule 5, Civil P. C. in the matter of some decrees relating to payment of money pending disposal of the appeal.2. An order 'ex parte' granting interim stay on terms of furnishing adequate security etc., was passed in favour of the appellants. The trial Court reported that the appellants have furnished satisfactory security for the due fulfilment of the ultimate decree that may be passed in the appeal. The respondents after notice contended that they were not afforded sufficient opportunity in the trial Court to demonstrate the nature and adequacy of the security furnished. The applications were, therefore, at the request of the respondents, referred back to the trial Court for a fresh finding about the nature of the security and the solvency of the sureties after allowing full opportunity to the parties. A further report has since been received stating that the security accepted earlier is satisf...
Tag this Judgment!Thimmayya Vs. M.B. Sadasivappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Kant76; AIR1952Mys76
1. This is an appeal against an order by which a previous order of temporary injunction was vacated. Both orders were passed in the course of proceedings relating to the application of the appellant for permission to sue in forma pauperis. There is no order as yet for the case being registered as a suit.2. Two questions arise for consideration viz., whether at this stage an order of temporary injunction can be made at all and if so, the provision under which it can be passed.The power to grant temporary injunction is conferred by Section 94, C.P.C., which states:'In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, the Court may, if it is so prescribed. ... (c) grant a temporary injunction....'The words 'if it is so prescribed' imply that the exercise if not the existence of power is conditioned upon a provision being available for the same. The circumstances under which an order of temporary injunction can be passed are set forth in Order 39 and according to the words employed...
Tag this Judgment!Revanna Devaru Vs. A.V. Ranga Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Kant119; AIR1952Mys119
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the first respondent for redemption of the properties now in dispute. According to his case the property belonged to his father Venkataramanayya and his uncle Ranganna and they mortgaged the properties with possession to Siddabasappa father of Defendants 1 and 2. The 3rd defendant has been impleaded as a person in possession of the properties, while plaintiff's brothers defendants 4 and 5 are formal parties to the suit. The main contesting defendant is the third defendant. He claims to have been in adverse possession of the property for over 12 years and denies title of the plaintiff. He does not admit that the property had been mortgaged by his father and uncle as alleged in the plaint.2. Some oral evidence has been let in by the plaintiff to show that the mortgage deed, copy of which is Ext. J, is genuine and that the properties are his family properties and that they were in possession of the mortgagee Siddabasappa. P. W. 2 an...
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Subbaraya Setty and Sons Vs. S.K. Palani Chetty and Sons
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Kant69; AIR1952Mys69
Vasudevamurthy, J. 1. These two cases were heard together, the same point being involved for decision. In B. A. No. 105/50-51 the respondents filed a suit O. S. No. 37 of 1949 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Coimbatore against the appellant who is a merchant in Arsikere in Mysore State and obtained an ex parte decree on 28-3-1949. The Appellant did not enter appearance and did not submit himself to the Jurisdiction of that Court. The Respondents subsequently got the decree transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hassan and sought execution there. The appellant-judgment-debtor objected to the execution of the decree on the ground that it was an ex parte decree passed by a foreign Court when he was still a subject of the Mysore State, permanently residing at Arsikere. The learned Subordinate Judge overruled that objection and directed execution to proceed. The Judgment-debtor has appealed.2. It is contended by Mr. V. L. Narasimhamur-thy, learned Counsel for the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Jayalakshmi and ors. Vs. K. Bharamiah Gowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Kant137; AIR1952Mys137
Venkataramaiya, J. 1. The Appellants, as unmarried daughters, sued their fathers, alienees from their lathers and their brothers for shares in the properties described in plaint schedule alleging that these belonged to a joint family of which they are members, that the alienations of the same effected by the father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and father of plaintiffs 3 and 4 were not valid as has been held in a suit instituted by the plaintiffs' brothers and do not affect the plaintiffs' shares. According to the ultimate decision in that suit, the alienees are entitle only to the shares of the father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and father of plaintiffs 3 and 4 and these shares are to be separated from the shares of plaintiffs' brothers after a division of the properties. The present suit is said to have become necessary as plaintiffs were not parties to the suit in which partition is ordered and as such could not secure their shares in the properties. Of the defendants, the fathers and brothers re...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal J. Boal Vs. U.R. Ramachar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Kant80; AIR1952Mys80; ILR1952KAR344
ORDER1. The plaintiff has brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, in effect for a declaration that he is entitled to enforce against defendant 1 and defendant 2 (who is said to have purchased the property from defendant 1 'pendente lite' certain restrictive covenants fixed by the Bangalore City Municipality at the time of ' sale by them of the vacant sites in the area in question in Gandhlnagar as to leaving of certain open spaces in their own site between his own and the defendants' property as well as in front of their own building and the nature of the building to be constructed on their own site; and for a permanent injunction directing the defendants to remove certain structures which the latter had constructed on their own site as being contrary to or in breach of those restrictive covenants.The plaintiff valued the reliefs for purposes of jurisdiction and Court-fee at Rs. 3080 under Section 4(iv) (c) of the proviso to Mysore Court-fees Act. He valued at ...
Tag this Judgment!Siddamma and anr. Vs. Nanje Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Kant75; AIR1952Mys75; ILR1952KAR279
1. A preliminary objection is raised to the appeal being heard by a single Judge on the ground that all appeals are required to be heard by a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court under Section 15 of the Mysore High Court Act and that the amendment of this by Act 35 of 1951 providing for second Appeals in which the value of subject-matter is not more than Rs. 3,000/- being decided by a Judge sitting along is ultra vires. Act 35 of 1951 came into force on 18th December 1951 and all second appeals were being heard till now by a Bench of two Judges, irrespective of the value of subject-matter. The validity of this Act is questioned not because of any doubt about the hearing of the appeal or the decision by a single Judge being fair but on the score of want of authority for the State Legislature to alter existing laws at the time of the Constitution relating to the High Court. Articles 225 and 372 are referred to for the law prevalent on the date of the Constitution continuing to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›