Karnataka Court December 1953 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.
Shankariah and ors. Vs. Ramiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Kant184; AIR1954Mys184; ILR1954KAR354
1. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the learned Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff-respondent has a right to take water from the well situated in the land that has fallen to the share of the defendant and in awarding damages of Rs. 200/- on the ground that the appellant-defendant prevented the plaintiff from taking water to his land and thus caused his garden to dry up.2. It is not disputed that the entire land which belongs to the plaintiff and the defendant who are brothers was fed not only by tank water but also by the water from the well situated in the portion of the land that has fallen to the share of the defendant. In fact there is Ex. A Uttar copy which clearly shows that both portions are entitled to water from both sources. It has to be noticed that the defendant could only get water through a channel situated in the plaintiff's land while the plaintiff has to take water from the well situated in the land that has fallen to the sha...
Bangalore City Municipality--now the Corporation of Bangalore and anr. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Kant171; AIR1954Mys171
Mallappa, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit under consideration in this appeal for declaration that the acquisition of two shops mentioned in the plaint schedule by the Government at the instance of the Bangalore City Municipality is illegal and invalid and for an injunction restraining the defendants, that is, the Bangalore City Municipality and the Land Acquisition Officer from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs.2. The Government started acquisition proceedings at the instance of the Bangalore City Municipality, as it then was, for acquisition of the two shops now under consideration and a few other shops and according to the notification the acquisition was necessary for widening Rangaswamy Temple Street at the junction of the Avenue Road, Bangalore City, and for adding some land to SriSiddaroodaswami Mutt. As is clear from Ext. II, the plaintiff who is the owner of the two shops, objected to the acquisition on the ground that the two shops were separated by anot...
Bommarasegowda Vs. B.T. Gundappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Kant121; AIR1954Mys121
ORDER1. This case has been referred to a Division Bench by my learned brother for decision of the court-fee payable in a suit triable by the Court of Small Causes, if the amount and nature of the claim are alone taken into account but which was sought to be and has been registered as an original suit. The suit is for recovery of Rs. 81-1-0 in respect of a loan and maintainable in the Small Cause Court, but for the defendant being alleged to be an agriculturist and the longer period of limitation provided for in the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act for such a suit being, availed of. Section 23 of the said Act states that every suit under the Act shall be tried as an original suit. 2. In view of Act 18 of 1952 -- The Mysore Court-fee Amendment Act -- there is a difference in the court-fee payable in suits of Small Causes and Original Suits, the scale prescribed for the former being less under Article 1 (a). To have the benefit of this, the suit must be of the nature cognizable by Courts...
State of Mysore Vs. C.V. Gopala Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1238
ORDER1. In the course of the trial of the case against respondent for offences of cheating, forgery etc., the prosecution sought to prove the writing of accused by evidence of an expert based on comparison of the writing in question with that obtained during investigation, from the accused. This was objected to as being repugnant to Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India and tantamount to compelling the accused to give incriminatory evidence. The objection was upheld. Later the prosecution requested the Court to call upon the accused to give his writing in Court and make it available for comparison by the expert. This was also rejected. Hence this petition.2. Whatever may be said in regard to the writing given to the Police, there is preponderance of authority to justify the later application made to the Magistrate, The cases are collected In - 'Golam Rahman v. The King' : AIR1950Cal66 . The effect of these as stated in the head note is:Section 73, Evidence Act is quite general in...
Bank of Mysore Ltd., Avenue Road, Bangalore City Vs. B.D. Naidu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Kant168; AIR1954Mys168; ILR1954KAR422
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. Respondent sued the appellant which is the Bank of Mysore, Ltd., for return of the Shares left as security for a loan, alleging that the Bank unreasonably failed to accept the tender of monies due and caused loss to the respondent estimated at Rs. 11,000/- and this sum together with dividends payable with respect to the shares are more than sufficient to wipe off the debt. The tender and discharge of the debt were both denied by the Bank and a lien on the shares was claimed for payment of the loan referred to in the plaint as well as another for recovery of which a decree has been obtained in the Court of the Sub Judge. The question as to what was the amount due to the Bank was raised in Issue No. 4, that of tender in Issue No. 1 and of damages in Issue No. 3. Without recording any evidence the learned District Judge dismissed the suit holding that it was not maintainable. The dismissal was set aside by this Court and the ease remanded for disposal after taking ev...
In Re: R. Nanjiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Kant170; AIR1954Mys170
Venkata Kamaiya, J.1. The two questions referred to this Court by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 16, Mysore Sales Tax Act are:'1. Whether on the facts of the case the assesses being a commission agent licensed by the Regulated Market is required to take out a license under Section 9 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act so that he may not be taxed as a dealer and whether in the absence of a license he is liable for taxation under Section 3 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act? 2. Whether Section 9 of the Mysore Bales Tax Act is a charging Section......'. 2. The facts bearing on the first question as stated in the reference are: The ryots and sellers of goods bring them to Mysore City. The Octroi Mutsaddi or Octroi Qokad levies market cess and octroi if any. The assessee as holder of a license issued by the Regulated Market to act as commission agent waits at the Qokad takes the carte in which the goods are brought by the ryots to the Regulated market or deputes his authorised agents to do so...
Venkataravanappa and ors. Vs. Dasappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Kant3; AIR1955Mys3; ILR1954KAR413; (1956)34MysLJ7
1. The plaintiffs' suit for specific performance was dismissed by the Munsiff of Madhugiri. His judgment was reversed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge of Tumkur who has made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for. Defendants 2 to 5 have come up in second appeal.2. The plaintiffs' case is that defendant 1, who was admittedly the owner of the land, had agreed to sell the schedule property to him for Rs. 850/-. He had received an advance of Rs. 100/- and had executed a consideration receipt Ex. A dated 20-6-47, promising to receive the balance of Rs. 750/- before the Sub-Registrar after executing a proper registered sale deed. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs on 7-7-1947 originally against defendant 1.Some days later by an application dated 14-3-1947 the plaintiff sought for permission and impleaded defendants 2 to 5 as supplemental defendants on finding that defendant I had on 7-7-1947conveyed the suit property to them for Rs. 1,125/-and executed a sale deed Ex. C in ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›