Karnataka Court June 1952 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Basavantappa and ors. Vs. Dasappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant35; AIR1953Mys35; ILR1953KAR51; (1954)32MysLJ57
1. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is lor partition of the plaint schedule properties and for being put in possession of such share as they are entitled to. The plaintiffs purchased the properties in execution of a decree obtained by them against a joint family, of which the defendants are members, on the foot of a hypothecation deed. The decree-holders-purchasers were put in possession of the properties on 2-1-1934. To what extent this decree was binding on the other members oi' the family was considered in 2 suits filed by some of them and it is sufficient to state that it is not disputed in this case that the share of the appellants is not affected by the sale in favour of the plaintiffs.What is however contended is that the suit filed on 2-1-1946 which is filed just within 12 years after delivery of possession, but beyond 12 years after the sale was made absolute, is barred by time as under Art. 138, Limitation Act, time for a suit for possession of properties purchased in executi...
Chennamma Vs. Dyana Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant136; AIR1953Mys136
ORDER1. This is a reference under the Proviso to Section 113, Civil P. C. by the Munsiff of Nanjangud seeking opinion of this Court on the following question: 'Whether Section 23 (b) and (c) of the Act to amend the Hindu Law as to the rights of women and in certain other respects (Act 10 of 1933) is invalid or inoperative by virtue of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution?' 2. The reference is said to have become necessary as the learned Judge while dealing with a suit for maintenance by a Hindu woman against her husband on the ground that he has kept a concubine, considered that Section 23 of the Act relied upon is repugnant to Article 15 of the Constitution of India which forbids discrimination against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. The reason given for this view is that the Act in which the section appears is applicable only to a section of people who follow the Mitakshara school of Hindu Law and not to all persons such as, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›