Karnataka Court October 1954 Judgments
Srinivasiah Vs. Thayamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Kant48; AIR1955Mys48; ILR1954KAR499; (1956)34MysLJ172
ORDER1. This revision petition is against the order of the learned First Additional District Judge Bangalore, in H. R. C. Appeal No. 90 of 1953, setting aside the order of the Additional Munsiff and House Rent Controller, Corporation Area, Bangalore, in H. R. C. Petition No. 224/ ACC(B)/1953 that the petitioner should be put in possession of the premises of which he was formerly a tenant, but had to vacate as the respondent-landlady had to effect some repairs. This High Court in its order dated 1-9-1952 in H R. C. Revision Petition No. 647/51-52 directed that the present petitioner should vacate the premises by 1-11-52 and-that he should be put back in possession of the property within two months from that date. It has to be noticed that the petitioner did not vacate the building on 1-11-52, but had to be expelled later on by a coercive process. As such, as contended by the learned Advocate for the respondent, he is not entitled to apply for being put in possession of the property. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Puttathayamma and anr. Vs. Rathnarajiah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Kant33; AIR1955Mys33
1. The plaintiff's suit for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and. 2 from interfering with his possession of a piece of land in Hassan Taluk, was dismissed by the Munsiff, but on appeal that Judgment was reversed by the Subordinate Judge, and the defendants have come up in Second Appeal.2. The plaintiff is defendant 1's father's brother's son. Defendant 2 is a nephew of defendant 1's husband. The plaintiff's ease is that he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from 1917 openly and as of right, that he had leased the property from two years previous to suit to one Rangegowda, who had cultivated the land, and that the defendants who had no manner of right or title to the land had interfered with his possession. He gave his cause of action as June 1949.Defendant 1 pleaded that the land had been purchased by her deceased husband on 28-6-1904, that after his death (in 1905 or 1906) she had succeeded to it and was all along in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›