Karnataka Court July 1954 Judgments
Paremajalu Chettiappa Vs. Pattangeri and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Kant187; AIR1954Mys187
Vasudevamurthy, J1. The suit by the plaintiffs for redemption and possession of the plaint schedule lands has been decreed by the Court below and defendant 5 has come up in second appeal. The lands were mortgaged with possession by Pattangeri alias Markje Thammiah, father of plaintiffs 2 to 5, and Belliappa, father of plaintiff 1, in favour of Thekkada Belliappa the father of defendants 1 and 2 and grand-father of defendants 3 and 4 under a usufructuary mortgage deed dated 19-3-1894. According to the plaintiffs the mortgagee was entitled to the usufruct of the property for a period of 50 years from the date of that mortgage. He was bound to pay land revenue and other dues payable to Government upon the said property and to pay himself a sum of Rs. 600/- and interest thereon from the income of the property during that period, and thereafter restore back possession of the property to the mortgagors. It was also alleged in the plaint that while defendants 1 to 4 were in possession as lega...
Tag this Judgment!M. Thiruvengadam Vs. the Indian Institute of Science and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Kant158; AIR1954Mys158; (1957)ILLJ285Kant
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. The petitioner has made an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for the issue of a proper direction, order or writ to the respondents declaring that his appointment by respondent 2 to the post of Electrical Supervisor in the Department of Power Engineering of respondent 1 never ceased, that he is still an occupant of the post entitled to hold and function in the same without any obstruction from the respondents, and requiring respondents 2 and 3 to restore and admit him to the post and let him work therein without any let or hindrance. Respondent 1 is the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, respondent 2 the Council of the Indian Institute of Science, respondent 3 the Director and respondent 4 the Registrar of that Institute.2. The facts relevant to this case are practically undisputed and are set out in para 8 of the petition. On 7-5-1953, it appears that the then Director in charge while checking a statement presented by the petit...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Ramaiya and anr. Vs. State of Mysore by the Chief Secretary
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Kant161; AIR1954Mys161
Vasuduvamurthy, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioners have prayed that the action of the Legislature in Mysore in enhancing the court-fees on writ petitions under the Mysore Court-fees (Amendment) Act, from Rs. 2/- to Rs. 20/- is void as being opposed to the fundamental rights guaranteed tinder the Constitution. The petitioners do not claim any other relief nor do they complain in their petition that any particular fundamental rights of their own have been at present infringed and that the enhanced court-fee is standing in their way of approaching this Court under Article 226 on account of their own poverty. We have held in this Court that only a person aggrieved can move the Court by a writ: vide -- 'Bangalore Dist. Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore', AIR 1951 Mys 14 (A).The Supreme Court have also expressed the same view in -- 'Charanjit Lal v. Union of India' : [1950]1SCR869 (B), where Fazl Ali, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›