Karnataka Court September 1954 Judgments
Narasappa and ors. Vs. Nanjappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Kant62; AIR1955Mys62; (1956)34MLJ164
1. As many as 8 plaintiffs, including the present three appellants each of whom owns the several survey numbers referred to in para 2 of the plaint, brought a suit against the defendants for a declaration of their easementary rights to drive their carts and to pass through certain survey numbers belonging to the defendants and for a permanent injunction to protect their right. That suit was dismissed by the Munsiff whose decision has been confirmed by the Subordinate Judge. Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 6 alone have come up in second appeal. 2. The learned Munsiff, on a detailed consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that 'the plaintiffs had miserably failed to establish that they had acquired a right of easement by way of prescription regarding the alleged suit pathway in Section Nos. 4, 6 and 70'. The learned Subordinata Judge concurred with him in holding that the suit pathway A B C never existed. He thought that some of the traces of the pathway in Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Shivanna and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Kant17; AIR1955Mys17; 1955CriLJ360
Medapa, C.J.1. The facts of the case leading up to this appeal have been set out in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and also of my learned brother and need no repetition. The evidence discloses that articles of jewellery said to have been worn by the deceased Nanjamma have been traced to the possession of the accused persons within 6 days of the date of her death and seized under a mahazar 15 days thereafter. The appellants have not explained the circumstances under which they came to be in possession of the said articles. Section 114, Evidence Act, and in particular illustration (a) to that section warrants under the circumstances a presumption of guilt against the' appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the jwellery traced to the possession of the appellants are unidentifiable articles and as such there was no material to warrant a presumption under Section 114(a), Evidence Act.2. A perusal of the charge to the jury in the judgment of the learned...
Tag this Judgment!K. Dhondoji Rao Vs. Dominion of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1954
Reported in: AIR1957Kant94; AIR1957Mys94
1. The suit from which this appeal arises was initially filed against defendant 1, the State of Mysore represented by the Chief Secretary. Bangalore and (2) the Government of India, represented by the Governor-General in Council, New-Delhi. The cause title was subsequently amended by the substitution of the description of defendant 2 as the Government of the Dominion of India, New Delhi, represented by the General Manager, M and S M Railways, Madras.2. The claim of the plaintiff was for the recovery, of Rs. 2.500/- as compensation for the non-delivery of goods consigned by him on 23-11-47 at Vontimitta, a station of the M End S M Railways. The destination was Davanagere, a station which was then included in the Mysore Railways. The main contention of the defendants is that there was no valid notice prior to suit as required under Section 80. C P. C, and that the suit, in consequence, is riot maintainable.The other objections raised by them are that the notices Issued under Section 77 o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›