Karnataka Court March 1952 Judgments
J.T. Gopalakrishnan Vs. H.S. Raja Iyengar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant8; AIR1953Mys8
Balakrishnayya, J.1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the House Rent Control Appeal No. 62 of 48-49 and House Rent Control Revision Petition No. 99 of 49-50 and for quashing the orders passed thereon.2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The petitioner purchased a house in Bangalore on 14-11-1947 from its previous owners, under whom the first respondent was a tenant for a number of years. He issued a notice on 18-12-1947 terminating the tenancy from 1-2-1948. Another notice was also issued on 1-4-1948 terminating the tenancy from 1-5-48 and claiming possession of the house for his bona fide occupation. In the first of these notices the petitioner alleged that he purchased the house for his bona fide occupation as he found it difficult to carry on his business and activities in public life from Robertsonpet, K. G. F. and also because some of the members of his family...
Tag this Judgment!A. Seetharamachar and ors. Vs. the Town Municipal Council, Closepet
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant40; AIR1953Mys40
1. These appeals arise from two suits filed against the Town Municipal Council, Closepet, for declaration that certain taxes levied by it were illegal and for refund of the amounts' collected as such taxes. The liability in refund any amount was denied and the levy was alleged to be quite legal. Issues concerning these were framed and by consent of parties the suits were tried together with evidence common to both. The suits were dismissed on the ground that the requirements of S. 178, Town Municipalities Act are not satisfied. The decision is confirmed in appeal. The plaintiffs in the two suits therefore appeal. 2. It is curious that although no objection is taken to the suits in the written statements on the ground of notices sent by plaintiff prior to the suits being defective, and no issue was framed about it, the learned Munsiff thought it necessary to scrutinise the contents of the notices and hold that these do not satisfy the provisions of S. 178 of the Act. Further no finding ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Muninarayana Reddy and ors. Vs. C.P. Chinnaswamy Gownder
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Kant120; AIR1952Mys120
1. Respondent sued appellants for recovery of Rs. 163-14-0 paid by him towards a debt contracted by appellants with the Government of Mysore on the security of certain immovable properties which were purchased by him. The properties were purchased under a registered sale deed dated 18-11-1946 for a sum of Rs. 32,000/-, the recital in the sale deed being that there were no encumbrances. Admittedly there was a charge on the properties for a loan by Government. Subsequently while seeking transfer of the khata of the properties to his name, the respondent wrote to the Amildar stating that he had purchased the same subject to the payment of the Land Improvement Loan and that the appellants conveyed all their rights and liabilities. There was a similar communication by the appellants.2. The plaint makes no reference to the letters of the parties but alleges fraudulent suppression of information about the prior encumbrances. When confronted with these at the trial, the respondent set up a sto...
Tag this Judgment!Harbhogowandas Purushothamdas Vs. C. Narayana Iyengar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Kant116; AIR1952Mys116
1. This appeal arises from a suit on two hundies dated 30-1-1945 against three defendants the first being described as a firm and the others as its partners. Defendant 3 the executant of the hundies was ex parte and the decree passed against him remains unquestioned. The dispute in the case centred on the liability of defendant 2. He denied the existence of any partnership between him and defendant 3 and contended that in view of the execution of the hundies by defendant 3 in his individual capacity the claim against any one else is untenable. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected these pleas and decreed the suit against all defendants but on appeal by defendant 2 the decree passed against him was set aside. The plaintiff appeals.2. The liability of defendant 2 depends on his having been a partner or his holding out to be a partner on the date of the hundies and defendant 3 having signed the hundies on behalf of the firm. If there was no firm in existence, as a matter of fact, no liab...
Tag this Judgment!A.A. Khan and ors. Vs. Ameer Khan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Kant131; AIR1952Mys131; ILR1951KAR486; (1953)31MysLJ103
1. Plaintiffs 1 to 6 are the sons of Defendant 4. The age of the eldest i.e. plaintiff 1's age was 18 when the suit was filed in forma pauperis, on 9-10-46, by him and his five younger brothers who were all minors represented by their mother as next friend. Defendants 2 and 3 are also minors and sons of Defendant 1. The plaintiffs' case is that they, represented by their father and guardian defendant 4, entered into a partnership arrangement with defendants 1 to 3 for carrying on business under the name and style of the New Bombay Tailoring Co., under terms and conditions which were embodied in a registered deed of partnership dated 6-1-1944. Towards the capital of that partnership they invested Rs. 12,000/-, defendant 1, Rs. 1000/-and defendants 2 and 3 each Rs. 12,000/-making up in all Rs. 37,000/-. The partnership was to run for a period of 5 years with effect from 1-11-1943, from which date they had been carrying on the business, and they were entitled to a 5 annas share of the pro...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Namjundaiah Vs. Setti Chikka Thippanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Kant123; AIR1952Mys123
ORDER1. In C. C. No. 123 of 1943-49 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate, Chickballapur, the respondent was convicted for an offence under section 500, I. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. On appeal, the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore, acquitted the accused on the ground that no case is made out against him. The complainant has preferred this revision petition against that order.2. Defamation is denned by Section 499, I. P. C. thus:'Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.'3. It is not disputed that the expression 'black-marketeer' which is per se defamatory I within the meaning of the aforesaid section was used by the accused in relation to ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Rao Ganesh and anr. Vs. Sarvajana Vardhini Co. Ltd. and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Kant125; AIR1952Mys125
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed for the sale of the mortgaged property of the plaint schedule in enforcement of the mortgage and for declaration that the 8th defendant was in no way entitled to any interest therein. The Munsif dismissed the suit while the learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit.2. The facts so far as are necessary for the determination of issues involved in the case may be briefly adverted to. Defendants 1 and 2 are father and son respectively and the schedule property was ancestral to them. The said property was mortgaged with possession by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 4 on 12-9-1928 under a registered deed of mortgage (Ex. A) for a sum of Rs. 1000/- both on his own behalf and as guardian of defendant 2. It is alleged that the said mortgage was for legal necessity and in consequence binding on defendant 2. Besides, it is also stated that the 2nd defendant had not been born at the time of the earlier mortgage dated 23-8-22, to discharge w...
Tag this Judgment!Sidde Gowda Vs. Nadakala Sidda Naika and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Kant117; AIR1952Mys117; (1953)31MysLJ109
1. The original suit out of which this appeal arises was filed in a representative capacity, for a declaration that the plaint schedule property belongs to the people of the village of Marase and that the alienation by the defendants does not bind the plaintiffs and for possession of the same together with mesne profits. The Munsiff dismissed the suit while the Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. The 5th defendant who is now in possession of the property and who is the third alienee has preferred this appeal against that judgment.2. The evidence adduced in the case is conclusive that the property belongs to the villagers of Marase and the same was purchased originally by defendant 1 for and on behalf of the villagers. The documents produced in the case especially the khirdi extract (Ex.- C) and the khatha extracts (Exs. D and E) clearly show that the khatha stands in the name of defendant 1 for and on behalf of the villagers while the admission of defendant 1 him...
Tag this Judgment!P. Krishnaiah Setty Vs. A.V. Lakshmana Rao and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Kant139; AIR1952Mys139
ORDER1. These petitions arise out of proceedings under the Mysore House Rent Control and Accommodation Order of 1948. The petitioner in both these cases is the owner of the premises described in the schedule thereto, comprising of shops and dwelling portion and the respondents are the tenants of different portions thereof. The petitions were filed for evicting the respondents on the ground that the premises were required for the bona fide use and occupation by the owner himself. The House Rent Controller found in favour of the petitioner and directed eviction; but on appeal the Appellate Authority reversed the order and dismissed the petitions on the ground that the notices to quit were invalid in law.2. The first of these petitions C. R. P. 334/ 51-52 arises from H. R. C. 20/49-50 filed by the petitioner against the respondent. Lakshmana Rao, the respondent took the lease of the portion of the property on 6-3-1944 from Thimmaiah and Nagappa, the mortgagees with possession for a period...
Tag this Judgment!A. Dastagir Sab Vs. N. Shariffunnisa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant145; AIR1953Mys145
1. Respondent 1 is the legally wedded wife of the appellant. She filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 525/- being the amount of dower, for the maintenance amount of Rs. 540/- for three years previous to the suit; for directing the defendant to fulfil conditions of the decree in favour of the appellant (Order Section 310 of 39-40 on the file of the Munsiff, Shimoga), or in the alternative for a decree granting divorce to the plaintiff by the dissolution of the marriage between herself and the appellant. The appellant denied his liability to pay either the dower or the amount of maintenance claimed; regarding the relief of fulfilment of the conditions in Order Section 310 of 39-40, he pleaded that the conditions were too onerous to be complied with and that respondent 1 is not entitled to the dissolution of the marriage as the requirements for the grant of the relief are not existing. The trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 250/- being the prompt portion of the dower and the rest of res...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »