Karnataka Court September 1952 Judgments
Sakamma Vs. Chikkannagowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Kant5; AIR1954Mys5
1. The facts of the case under consideration in this appeal are not disputed. The correctness of the findings of the Courts below on questions of fact is not challenged. Both the Courts have held that the plaintiff was the daughter of the deceased uncle of the defendant-respondent, who is the present holder of the Pateli Office of Chilaganahalli, a village in Koratagere Taluk. The property in dispute was in possession of defendant's uncle Kallurappa and after his death it has been in the possession of his daughter the plaintiff and her son for over 15 years by virtue of a gift made by her father under a registered deed, dated 22-1-1935. The plaintiff filed the suit under appeal for a permanent, injunction restraining defendant 1 the Patel and defendant 2 his son, from interfering with her peaceful possession. Her son who is her legal representative is the appellant. It was contended by the defendants that the property is a pateli-inam land, that it belongs to defendant 1 and that the s...
Tag this Judgment!Gullegar Setty Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant31; AIR1953Mys31; ILR1953KAR298
ORDER1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Special First Magistrate, Shimoga, for an offence under Section 4(1) (j), Mysore Prohibition Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. On appeal, the Sessions Judge, Shimoga, confirmed the conviction and sentence. He has now come up in revision. 2. The case for the prosecution was that the petitioner was found on the Ayanoor Shimoga road to have consumed intoxicating liquor on the night of 23-4-1951 when he was travelling as a passenger in a car with his wife, and when the car was stopped by the Police Inspector of Shimoga Taluk coming to Shimoga in the opposite direction. It is not disputed that the whole of Shimoga District is a prohibition or 'dry' area and that the Prohibition Act fully applied in that area; nor is it now contended that the accused had not consumed any liquor. But Mr. Gulur Sreenivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has raised a Bather interesting question and that is that the case of his client does no...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatappa and ors. Vs. Hanumanthappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant152; AIR1953Mys152; ILR1953KAR295
1. The facts relevant to the consideration of the dispute in this appeal are briefly these: The schedule lands in the Khayamgutta Madihala village, Kolar belonged to the vritti of one Lakshmana Sastry, who had mortgaged it to one Kempanna. Lakshmana Sastry filed a suit ior redemption against Kempanna in O. S. No. 246 of 1917-18 and obtained, a decree. The plaintiff, the assignee of the decree sued out execution and obtained symbolical possession of the property as one Ramiah (defendant 1) in the present suit set up 'kadim' or permanent tenancy rights in the land under Lakshmana Sastry. The plaintiff then filed a suit, O. S. No. 505/33-34 for declaration that Ramiah is a common tenant and for share of the produce, by way of mesne profits. The Court granted a decree negativing the right of permanent tenancy pleaded by Ramiah. Three subsequent suits (O. S. No. 335/40-41, O. S. 471/41-42 and O. S. No. 212/45-46) filed by the plaintiff against Ramiah for the recovery of the share of produce...
Tag this Judgment!Earamma Vs. Nathegowda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Kant26; AIR1954Mys26; ILR1953KAR332; (1954)32MysLJ161
1. Defendant 2, who is the appellant in this second appeal, is the wife of defendant 1, and defendants 3, 4 and 5 are her brothers. The plaintiff brought a suit against all the defendants for recovery of possession of three items of the plaint schedule property and for mesne profit's claiming that he had purchased those items under two registered sale deeds dated 6-3-45 and 13-7-45 from defendant 1 and that by those purchases he could claim priority over a charge for maintenance which had been created in a maintenance suit which defendant 2 had filed against her husband. The suit was dismissed by the Munsiff and on appeal has been decreed as prayed for except for mesne profits.2. So far as item 1 of the plaint schedule property is concerned, its sale in favour of the plaintiff was on 6-3-45 and that was before defendant 2 filed her in 'forma pauperis' suit :n Misc. 159 of 44-45 on 18-5-45, as well as the attachment which was also before these miscellaneous proceedings i.e. on 7-7-45 as...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore Woollen Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. the Labour Appell ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant59; AIR1953Mys59; (1954)ILLJ306Kant
Vasudevamurtky, J.1. C. P. No. 4/52-53 is an application by the Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co., Ltd., Bangalore under Article 225. Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of Respondent 1 dated 14-3-52 only in so far as it imposes certain conditions on the petitioners while granting permission to discharge some workmen who were employed in the petitioners' Mills. Respondent 1 is the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India constituted under the Indian Appellate Tribunal Act, 1950 and is described as having its office at Fort, Bombay and Respondent 2 is the Binny Mills Labour Association with its office in Bangalore City.The application is accompanied by an affidavit wherein the circumstances under which the present application has come to be made are set out. In May 1950, the Government of Mysore referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Act XIV of 1947) for adjudication, sev...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Mysore Vs. K. Basappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant75; AIR1953Mys75
1. The accused was tried and convicted by the City Magistrate, Mysore, for en offence under Rule 81 (2) and (4), Defence of India Rules read with Act 15 of 1947 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one week and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment to undergo S. I. for one month more. On appeal the then Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysore Division, set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted him. The Government have preferred this appeal against that judgment.2. The case against the accused is briefly as follows: On 10-11-1948 the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, issued a notification which was published in the Mysore Gazette on 11-11-1948 whereby he called upon all the stockists of paddy and rice to furnish a true declaration of the correct stocks of the said foodgrains held either for himself or on behalf of others to the Rationing Officer, Mysore City, if the stocks were held in Mysore City. This was to be done on or before 20-11-1948 and...
Tag this Judgment!B. Narayana Rao and ors. Vs. S.K. Francis
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Kant68; AIR1953Mys68
1. This appeal arises out of an order in an execution case on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Kolar. The appellants are the decree-holders in a suit O. S. No. 7 of 46-47 and the respondent is one of the sureties who is sought to be proceeded against to obtain satisfaction of the decree they have secured in that suit against one Aruldoss. 2. The plaintiffs filed their suit for the recovery of Rs. 6,500/- against the judgment-debtor and applied for attachment before judgment of his shop goods When the warrant was about to be executed the respondent and another Susinathan jointly entered into a surety bond Exhibit I on 15-9-1946 in favour of the Court agreeing to pay the entire amount of the decree that may be passed in the case and so the attachment was not effected. The plaintiffs' suit was ultimately decreed on 29-11-1948 and the same was confirmed by this Court in R. A. No. 108 of 47-48.3. On 5-12-1948, almost immediately after the decree was passed in their favour, the decree-ho...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›