Karnataka Court January 1954 Judgments
Hutchappa Vs. Mallappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Kant177; AIR1954Mys177
Venkataramaiya, J.1. The main question for determination in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek recovery of the amount advanced by him on the mortgage of two items of property described in the plaint schedule, by means of sale thereof through Court. Exhibit A dated 20-4-1946, on the terms of which the decision depends is styled as a document of mortgage with possession. After reciting that a sum of Rs. 650/- is received from the mortgagee and the properties are left in his possession for a period of two years, it states that immediately after the expiration of the said period the mortgagor will pay the amount to the mortgagee and in case of default the mortgagee may continue to be in possession of the properties. Defendant 1 and his wife defendant 2 have executed the document stating that they have signed it also as guardians of their three minor sons defendants 3, 4 and 5. Defendant 5 died during the pendency of the suit.2. The suit from which this appeal arises w...
Tag this Judgment!R. Gurubasaviah Vs. Rumale Karibasappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Kant6; AIR1955Mys6
ORDER1. The plaintiff made an application, I. A. 26, praying that his right to a 2/3 share in certain items of the plaint-schedule immoveable properties and his full ownership in respect of certain other items may be recognised and that the same may be divided by metes and bounds. The 7th defendant, who is the only contesting defendant in this matter, objected to such a relief . being given on the ground that the decree that had been passed in the case earlier on 2-12-1936 was a consent decree whereby the parties had decided about the shares due to each other and that the plaintiff could not ask for any larger share or for other items to be allotted to him contrary to that compromise decree. The learned District Judge dismissed I. A. 26 holding that the decree which was passed on 2-12-36 was not a 'preliminary decree' but a 'compromise decree' which was in the nature of 'final decree' and that therefore no relief could be given in this suit beyond what had been conceded in the compromi...
Tag this Judgment!Hutcha Thimmegowda and anr. Vs. Dyavamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Kant93; AIR1954Mys93; ILR1954KAR70; (1954)32MysLJ33
Medapa, C.J.1. The facts of the case which led up to this appeal have been set out in full in the judgment of the trial court as also in the judgment of my learned brother Justice Sri B. Vasudevamurthy which I have had the advantage of perusing; they need not therefore be reiterated. This appeal was directed to be placed before a Pull Bench as its disposal involved a consideration, rather a reconsideration of the views of this High Court on a very important point of Hindu Law, regarding which a definite view had been taken from a long time. The necessity for the reconsideration arose on account of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in -- 'pannalal v. Mt. Narainl' : [1952]1SCR544 (A). The important point of Hindu Law referred to above is whether the pious obligation of a son to discharge his father's debt arises during the lifetime of his father. The point, as al-ready stated, was well settled in Mysore. The views of the High Courts outside the State were also equally definite a...
Tag this Judgment!B.V. Sundariah Vs. B.R. Ramasastry and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Kant8; AIR1955Mys8
1. The plaintiff sued the defendants for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property, which is a piece of garden land, on the strength of a sale deed dated 1-11-1939 executed by defendants 1 and 2 for themselves and by defendant 1 as manager of a joint-family and as guardian of his then minor son defendant 3. He pleaded that he had been in possession and was dispossessed in October 1947. Defendant 1 pleaded that the sale deed Ex. 11 on which the plaintiff relied, was not meant to effect a sale and intended only as a security for the amount advanced by the plaintiff thereunder. Moreover as the plaintiff had been required under that deed to pay off an earlier debt due to defendant 4, a co-operative society which had obtained a decree against him and purchased the property in execution but had failed to do so, the plaintiff could not enforce the document. The society had subsequently sold the property to defendant 3 to whom it now belonged.Defendant 2 pleaded that he merely sig...
Tag this Judgment!T. Nagappa Vs. T.C. Basappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Kant102; AIR1954Mys102
Medapa, C.J.1. It will be necessary for a proper consideration of the arguments advanced in the case to set out in some detail the facts and circumstances which have led up to, and relevant for the disposal of this petition.The petitioner and the respondents were duly nominated candidates for election to the Mysore State Legislative Assembly from the Tarikere Constituency at the general elections held in this State on 4-1-1952. Respondents 5 to 9 withdrew their candidature within the prescribed time and as a result only the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 contested the elections. In the elections the petitioner secured 8093 votes as against 8059, 6239, 1644 and 1152 votes obtained by respondents 1 to 4 respectively. The Returning Officer thereupon declared the petitioner as the successful candidate in the election and the said declaration was published in the Mysore Gazette on 11-2-1952 as per the provisions of Section 67, Representation of the People Act, 1951.The petitioner lodged ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Lakkappa Vs. N.G. Narasimhegowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Kant111; AIR1954Mys111
ORDER1. The facts of the case leading to this petition are simple. The petitioner was one of the candidates for election to the Mysore State Legislative Assembly from the Chennarayapatna Constituency. There were objections to the acceptance of his nomination paper on the ground that be had at the time a subsisting contract with the Government of Mysore. The Returning Officer overruled and rejected the objection and the petitioner was declared to have been duly nominated. The petitioner contested the elections held on 16-1-1952 and was thereafter declared duly elected and the fact was notified in the official Gazette.2. The 1st respondent filed an election petition calling in question the election of the petitioner. He urged several grounds in support of the petition but it will be unnecessary to refer to all of them as all the members of the Tribunal were unanimous in overruling all the grounds excepting one. That ground related to the existence of a contract for the supply of goods be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›