Karnataka Court June 1952 Judgments
Government of Mysore by the Chief Secretary and anr. Vs. Kapurchand an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant16; AIR1953Mys16; ILR1953KAR128
1. On 29-6-1944, two bales of Lotus were sent by rail from Ambarnath Station to the plaintiff at Bangalore City. Of these, only one was delivered to the plaintiff and for recovery of Rs. 919-4-0 as the value of the undelivered bale he sued the Government of Mysore and the Mysore State Railways. Subsequent to the institution of the suit, part of the goods contained in the undelivered bale was given to the plaintiff and the claim was therefore reduced to Rs. 590-12-0. The suit was contested on various grounds but decreed. The decree has been confirmed in appeal.2. In the second appeal preferred by the defendants the decree made in favour of the plaintiff is challenged mainly on three grounds viz., firstly that the articles said to have been lost being of the kind mentioned in the schedule to the Railways Act, declaration of the contents of the bales should have been made as required by Section 59 of the Railways Act and since there was no such declaration, the defendants are not liable f...
Tag this Judgment!Kenchegowda Vs. P. Channaiya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant22; AIR1953Mys22; ILR1953KAR152
1. These two appeals are by the plaintiff who filed a suit for declaration of his title to, and for possession of, the schedule property with mesne profits. The Munsiff decreed the suit while the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeals filed separately by defendant 3 and defendants 1 and 2.2. The dispute leading to the litigation has been fully set out in the judgments of the two courts below and for the present purpose a brief summary of the salient features will be stated.3. The plaintiff purchased the undivided 1/3 share of the properties belonging to the joint family of the 1st defendant and his two brothers for a sum of Rs. 500/- under a registered sale deed dated 8-7-1839 and he is said to have paid the consideration therefor under a receipt dated 12-7-1939. The first defendant could not, and in fact did not, put the plaintiff in possession of the property sold for the obvious reason that the share was undivided. Under a later general partition dated 25-4-1946 the first def...
Tag this Judgment!Mallari Gowda Vs. Mari Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant55; AIR1953Mys55; ILR1953KAR134; (1954)32MysLJ128
1. The suit in O. S. No. 171 of 48-49 on the file of the Munsiff, Krishnarajanagar, in respect of which this appeal arises came up for evidence on 4-1-1949. The plaintiff's counsel on that date gave an offer to the defendant in the following terms as is clear from the order sheet :'That if he (defendant) swears before Hampapur Amma Temple at Hampapur that he (defendant) does not owe anything to the plaintiff, the suit will be dismissed or if the defendant allows the plaintiff to swear before the said temple that the defendant has taken a loan from him (plaintiff) the suit will be decreed as prayed for. The defendant states that he would: take an oath before the said temple. The plaintiff's counsel admits to it.'The Court passed an order appointing a commissioner for administering an oath and stated that if the defendant were to swear the suit shall be dismissed with the costs of the defendant and that it should be decreed in case he failed to do so. Before the date on which the oath ha...
Tag this Judgment!Sulegai Dodda Narayana Sa Vs. A. Hanumanthappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant25; AIR1953Mys25
1. The property concerned in this litigation admittedly belonged to one P. R. Hanumanthappa. He is said to have left a registered will dated 22-7-1921 by which he purported to create a trust over it for certain charitable purposes, viz., advancement of education of some orphan boys. By that will he appointed five trustees including his widow defendant 1 who died subsequent to the suit. The other trustees were also dead before the suit was filed. Plaintiffs l and 2 and defendants 4 and 5 were the sons of those trustees. Defendant 2 is said to have purchased the suit item from defendant 1 under a sale deed dated 12-9-43 and later on sold it to defendant 3 by a sale deed dated 30-3-46.2. The plaintiffs having applied for and obtained the permission of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, to bring a suit under Section 92 Civil P. C., brought their suit and prayed for the removal of defendant 1 from her trusteeship, for settling a scheme in accordance with the directions contained i...
Tag this Judgment!B.V. Rama Rao Vs. Jayamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant33; AIR1953Mys33
1. The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the agreement upon which the suit is based is immoral and opposed to public policy and as such unenforceable under Section 23, Contract Act. The Courts below concurred in holding that the agreement created a valid and enforceable contract and decreed the suit. The defendant has come up in second appeal.2. Briefly stated, the facts that led up to the suit claim are these: Jayamma the plaintiff is a married woman, having had a child by her husband. She was living with her father having been deserted by her husband, whose whereabouts remain unknown. The defendant who is also a married man, living with Ms family in the vicinity, is alleged to have had criminal intimacy with her for some time while she lived with her father and later he. took her into his own house, where the two lived together apparently as man and wife. The result of their living together was that she conceived and the defendant made arrangements t...
Tag this Judgment!Puttappa and anr. Vs. Basappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant113; AIR1953Mys113; ILR1953KAR114
1. The question raised in this case is whether an adoption by a Hinduwidow affects alienation of family properties prior to the adoption when the alienor was the sole surviving coparcener. The undisputed facts of the case are that the properties specified in plaint schedules belonged to a joint Hindu family consisting of Kolli Sanna Veerappa and his only son Hanumappa. The son died on or before 1934 leaving a widow Hanumavva and his father. On 9-8-1936, the suit properties were sold by the father Sanna Veerappa to one Subba Rao. The plaintiff relies on this sale to support his title. On 27-9-1937 Hanumavva the daughter-in-law of Sanna Veerappa sued him and his alienee for a share in the properties. The suit was dismissed.Defendant 2 is said to have given defendant 1, his son, in adoption to Hanumavva on 23-7-1936 and on the strength of this adoption the plaintiff's claim to the properties is challenged. The proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C., ended with an order under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Thimmiah and ors. Vs. Nanjappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant121; AIR1953Mys121; ILR1953KAR103; (1953)31MysLJ36
1. The suit in respect of which this appeal arises was for redemption of a mortgage and was filed by the sons of the deceased mortgagor. The plaintiffs claimed to be agriculturists under the Agriculturists Relief Act. It was contended that if accounts were taken under the said Act, the mortgage debt would be found to have been discharged and they would be entitled to be put in possession of the property mortgaged. They claimed mesne profits from the date of suit.2. Both the Courts below have concurred in holding that the debt has been wiped out,on taking accounts under Section 8, Agriculturists Belief Act, and as the debt was found discharged the suit for redemption was decreed. The learned Munsiff, however, allowed mesne profits from date of suit. But, on appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to mesne profits from the date of suit. The plaintiffs have come up in appealand contend that they are entitled to mesne profits from date of suit. A pla...
Tag this Judgment!Doddarangappa Vs. Kenchegowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant111; AIR1953Mys111; (1954)32MysLJ111
1. The property in dispute in this appeal originally belonged to Kenchegowda who, it is in evidence, died early in the year 1900 or in the early part of 1901. He left a widow by name Chikkamma and according to the case of the plaintiff, Mallegowda, father of Defendant 4 Karigowda is their adopted son, Karigowda hypothecated the property on 10-8-1927 to the plaintiff and the plaintiff obtained a decree against him and purchased the property in execution of that decree. The husband of the second defendant claimed to be the reversioner of Chikkamma and obtained a decree against Defendant 4 in O. S. No. 224 of 1935-36 on the file of the Munsiff, Madhugiri. The plaintiff-appellant has filed the suit now in appeal for a declaration of his title to the plaint schedule property and for possession of the same. Second defendant contends that Mallegowda, father of Defendant 4, was not the adopted son of Kenchegowda and Chikkamma and that after the death of Chikkamma, her husband became entitled t...
Tag this Judgment!Nandipuram Sreerangachar and ors. Vs. R. Chakravarthi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Kant45; AIR1954Mys45
1. The property in dispute in this case is the eastern half of Survey No. 2 in Hullamballi a village in Melville Taluk. Both the eastern half and the western half of this survey number have got the same boundaries and in fact each of them is two acres in extent. They belonged to one Venkatanarasimhachar. It is in evidence that he got the eastern half of it under the release deed Ex. G in 1897. No title deed has been produced to show how he acquired the western half. But it is in evidence that he executed the hypothecation deed Ex. P hypothecating the western half of Survey No. 2 measuring two acres and one other land and it has been stated in that document that he acquired them in a revenue sale. It is therefore clear that while he got the eastern half of Survey No. 2 under the release deed Ex. G, he got the western half in a revenue sale. On 22-2-1927 half of Survey No. 2 was hypothecated to the appellant and though it is not clearly stated whether it is the eastern or western half th...
Tag this Judgment!Muthegowda Vs. Shanbhogue Naranappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant29; AIR1953Mys29; ILR1953KAR92
Balakrishnaiya, J.1. The short point that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the lease-deed executed by the plaintiff's father gives the plaintiff a permanent heritable right. The two courts below have come to the conclusion that the document merely granted a permanent lease only for the life time of the lessee and did not grant any hereditary right. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal against those decisions.2. The plaintiff has brought the suit from which this appeal arises, for a declaration of his right to the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff's father, Dodda Muthegowda, obtained the lease of the schedule land from one Krishna Singh and executed a lease deed (Exhibit A) dated the 20th May 1915 in favour of the latter. The said lease has been referred to in Exhibit B, a will dated 30th August 1915 executed by Krishna Singh, wherein it is mentioned that the plaintiff's father should comply with the terms of the lease after Krishna S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »