Karnataka Court July 1952 Judgments
C.G. Devaraju Naidu and anr. Vs. T.M. Prabhuviah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant57; AIR1953Mys57
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. This revision petition has been referred to a Bench, it involves a question of law of some importance on which there has been no decided case of this Court so far.2. One Gurtiswami Naidu, father of the petitioner who claims to be his only son and legal representative, filed an application under Order 33, Rule 1, Civil P. C., seeking permission to sue in forma pauperis, for partition and possession of a Half share in some immoveable properties. The application was accompanied by an unstamped plaint purporting to be under Order 7 Rule 1, Civil P. C. Notices were ordered on his application but before his pauperism was enquired into, and his application registered as a suit Guruswami Naidu died. The petitioner filed two applications LA. No. 1 under Order 22, B. 4, Civil P. C., to be brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff and allowed to continue the proceedings initiated by his father; and I. A. No. 2 under O. 33, Rule 1, Civil P. C. pra...
Tag this Judgment!Chikkamma and ors. Vs. Kempegowda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant38; AIR1953Mys38; ILR1953KAR234; (1954)32MysLJ54
1. The point for consideration inthis appeal is whether the lower Courts wereright is dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs onpoints of law raised in the case. The plaintiffsclaim in this suit 'chat the suit pro property belongsto them after the death of Gowregowda, firstplaintiff's husband, the' original owner of the property. They contend that defendant 2 underwhom defendant 1 claims the pro property is notGowregowda's son. Present defendant 1 had filedO. S. 625 of 40-41 on the file of the Munsiff'sCourt, Nanjangud against defendant 2 on a hypothecation deed executed by him. Defendant 2 didnot contest that suit, but the plaintiffs in thissuit who were impleaded in that suit as defendants contended as they do now that the suitproperties exclusively belonged to them and defendant 2 who had executed the hypothecation deed,was not the son of Gowregowda, plaintiff 1's husband, to whom the properties in dispute originallybelonged.It was contended by defendant 1 who was the plaintiff in tha...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Laxmi Vs. M.V.C. Sastri
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant123; AIR1953Mys123; ILR1953KAR123
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. This is an appeal under the Guardians and Wards Act. The controversy is between parents, who are both Hindus, about the guardianship of the person and property of their only daughter. The child was born in February 1942, had the benefit of the care and company of both father and mother till 31-5-1944 and is separated from the mother since then, as she left the husband's house on that day and renewal of association between her and her husband has not been possible so far. After the mother's departure, the child was brought up for some time by the father's mother in Bangalore and on the death of the grand-mother in December 1944, by a relation of the father, at Madras. The father married a second wife in June 1946 and the child has been living with the father from the time the second wife joined him.2. The mother attempted at first to obtain custody of the child by means of an application for writ of Habeas Corpus in the High Court at Madras. The application was dis...
Tag this Judgment!M.V.C. Sastri Vs. Radhalakshmi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant147; AIR1953Mys147
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. This is a regrettable case in which the dispute is between husband and wife, about the amount of maintenance and certain articles dammed by her. The parties are Hindus belonging to respectable families of the same community. They were married in 1938 at Salem where the plaintiff's father waspractising as a Vakil. The plaintiff joined the defendant in 1940 after the consummation ceremony at Bangalore by which time her father had died and continued to be with him till the end Of May 1944, except during intervals of absence on account of her confinement in her mother's place and occasional visits. Barring differences of the usual type between an individualistic daughter-in-law and an imperious mother-in-law in a Hindu home, the family consisting of plaintiff, her husband, a child and mother-in-law normally and the father-in-law too, off and on, seems to have got on well enough, on the whole, without any apparent discomfort or discord.The incident which broke up or le...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner, Mysore Vs. S. Krishna Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant128; AIR1953Mys128
Balakrishnaiya, J.1. This petition arises out of a reference made on 30-1-1951 by theDeputy Commissioner, Mysore, to the Registrar of this Court, requesting that action may be taken against the respondent, under Section 11, Legal Practitioners Act. 1 is stated in that reference that the respondent who is a pleader, failed to refund a sum of Rs. 150/- entrusted to him by the Municipal Council of Merle in Krishnarajanagar Taluk. The High Court forwarded the said reference to the District Judge, Mysore, for enquiry and report. The learned District Judge after recording evidence and taking the statement of the pleader, came to the conclusion that the pleader had failed to refund the balance of the amount due by him to the Municipal Council either at the time when the demand was made or within a reasonable time thereafter The said report is for consideration before us under Section 13, Legal Practitioners Act.2. It is seen from the records that the pleader was entrusted by the Municipal Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Puttaswamiah Vs. Ramachandriah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant72; AIR1953Mys72
1. The plaint in the suit now under appeal was filed for a declaration of title and possession of the plaint schedule property. The case of the plaintiff is that the property belonged to one Mangamma and that she made a gift of it to the plaintiff on condition that the portion now in dispute should be in her possession till she died and that it might be taken possession of by plaintiff after her death. The defendants who are the appellants claim under a document executed by Mangamma subsequent to the gift. 2. It is in evidence that the suit property was given to Mangamma by her husband Venkatappa for being enjoyed by her till her death. According to his will the property had to go to her daughter Venkatalakshamma thereafter. It is thus clear that Mangamma had only a life interest and the gift could only be effective in respect of such interest as she had in the property. It is also clear that the plaintiff respondent ceased to have any title in the property the moment Mangamma died. It...
Tag this Judgment!Adi Lakshamma Vs. Subbarayappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant137; AIR1953Mys137; ILR1953KAR165
1. This is an appeal against the order of the lower appellate Court dismissing the regular appeal on the ground that it is barred by time and refusing to condone the delay of one day in filing the appeal. The appeal ought to have been filed on 20-12-48, but was filed on the next day.2. According to the affidavit filed by the appellant, she started from Manchenahalli on 20-12-1948, the last day on which she could have filed the appeal, to go to Kolar for that purpose. She could not however catch the first bus as there was already some rush of passengers bound for Bangalore, viz., Chick-ballapur on account of the visit of Pandit Nehru, a few days later. She caught the next bus and came to Chickballapur. By the time she went to Chickballapur, all the buses that go to Kolar from that place had already loft: as such she had to go to Kolar on the next day and file the appeal. The learned Subordinate Judge refused to condone the delay of one day and. dismissed the application filed for condon...
Tag this Judgment!Bettegowda and anr. Vs. Dyavarasegowda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant130; AIR1953Mys130
1. The suit in respect of which these appeals arise was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of a house and a land alienated by his maternal uncle as his guardian. As regards the house defendant 2 who has purchased it from the maternal uncle of the plaintiff pleaded that the sale is for the benefit of the plff. who was a minor at the time and it is therefore binding on him. The learned Munsiff upheld his contention and dismissed the suit. But this decision of the learned Munsiff was set aside by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mysore in R. A. 37/48-49. The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that there was no necessity to sell the house and he directed that possession of the property should be delivered to the plaintiff on his paying Rs. 90/- to defendant 4 who had subsequently purchased the property from defendant 2 as, in his opinion, the plaintiff has been benefited to the extent of that sum.2. As regards the alienation by a 'de facto' guardian, it is settled law...
Tag this Judgment!Nagappa and ors. Vs. Mahadevappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant36; AIR1953Mys36; ILR1953KAR158
1. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for partition and possession of his share of the plaint schedule property on the ground that, it is the joint family property of himself, his brother, Defendant 6, and their father Defendant 5. The concurrent finding of the Courts below that the property is the ancestral property of Defendant 5 was not disputed before me. The property was hypothecated for discharging previous debts one of which was a debt due on a promissory note. There is absolutely no evidence, to show that the debts due by the 5th defendant were contracted for any necessity or purposes binding on the joint family. It has therefore to-be stated that the hypothecation was binding only on such interest as the 5th defendant had at the time the hypothecation deed was executed.At that time the plaintiff had not been born. The only coparceners of the joint family were Defendant 5 and his son Defendant G. The plaintiff was born on 8-8-1928. Defendants 5 and 6 sold away the entire pro...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Mysore Vs. Gulam Mohamad and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1040
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal is raised by the learned Counsel for the accused. The appeal is filed under Section 417, Criminal P.C. against an order of acquittal by the Advocate-General on behalf of Government in accordance with the practice all along which was not questioned until very recently. It may be mentioned that there is no Public Prosecutor appointed by the Government to attend to criminal cases in appeal, revision or of reference in this Court and the Government is being represented by the Advocate-General in all such cases. The objection is based on the mention of Public Prosecutor and not Advocate-General in the Section as the person who may be instructed by the Government to file the appeal and on the distinction made in the Code between the two, not merely in the definition under Section 4 but also in other sections in which either is specifically referred 10.Since the provisions relating to appeal do not refer to Adv...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›