Karnataka Court June 1955 Judgments
B. Subba Rao Vs. B. Venkata Rao and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant118; AIR1955Mys118
ORDER1. The question raised in 'this petition is whether the order of the lower Court requiring the plaintiff to- pay additional Court-fee on the plaint is correct. The suit was for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the amount of Rs. 9863/- lying in deposit in the' Savings Bank account in the Taluk Treasury at Hosanagar in the name of the Amildar of that Taluk. It appears the Amildar was a Receiver in Cr. Misc. No. 1 of 50-51 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Sagar, and that as a result of the order in the proceedings the amount is payable to the plaintiff. In addition to declaration, the plaintiff sought for a permanent injunction to restrain the 1st defendant from withdrawing the amount from the Treasury.The relief for injunction was valued at Rs. 45/-and ad valorem Court-fee was paid on that amount besides the fixed fee for the relief of declaration. The defendants contended that the Court-fee paid was insufficient and the objection has been upheld. The learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishna Setty Vs. Mohideen Khan and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant126; AIR1955Mys126
Venkataramaiya, C. J.1. The property in dispute which is a house in Civil Station, Bangalore, admittedly belonged to one Chandbi who executed a sale deed Ex. XV dated 30-8-1915 with respect to it in favour of Syed Abdulla. Exhibit G dated 4-2-1938 is the other sale deed similarly executed by her in favour of Dastagir Khan who in turn executed the sale deed Ex. J in favour of Peer Khan. There was resale on 19-2-44 to Dastagir Khan and on the same day he executed Ex. F to the plaintiff. The property was attached in execution of a decree obtained against Syed Dawood son of Syed Abdulla the purchaser under Ex. XV. The plaintiff objected to the attachment alleging that he was the owner but the petition was dismissed on the ground that it was belated. In order to have it set aside the suit from which this appeal arises was filed against the purchaser of the property in execution proceedings who is defendant 1. The decree-holder was impleaded as defendant 2 and the legal representatives of th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chikka Byre Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant119; AIR1955Mys119; 1955CriLJ1274
Sreenivasa Rau, J.1. This is an-appeal against the judgment, dated 12-8-1954, of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Division, in Kolar Sessions Case .No. 7 of 1954, convicting the accused-appellant, Chikka Byre Gowda alias Nadipina Byregowda, of an offence punishable under Section 302, 1. P. C. and sentencing him to death. The proceedings have also been submitted to the High Court for confirmation under S. 374, Cr. P. C.2. The prosecution case is as follows :3. The accused was the second of three brothers who were living as members of a joint Hindu family. The eldest brother Doddabyregowda had a son B, Byregowda and a number of daughters. The son studied up to the S. S. L. C. examination and returned home. He thereafter interested himself in the management of the family affairs. He took exception to the accused selling away the goats belonging to the family behind the back of his brothers. Ultimately this dissatisfaction resulted in a partition of the family properties amongst the...
Tag this Judgment!Lingappa and anr. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Kant116; AIR1955Mys116; 1955CriLJ1272
ORDER1. This is a revision petition preferred by petitioners 1 and 2 against the judgment of the learned First Class Magistrate, Tumkur, in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1953, confirming that of the learned Second Magistrate, Tumkur, in C. C. No. 2066/52-53, convicting them of offences under Ss. 4(1) (a) and 4(1) (g), Mysore Prohibition Act and sentencing each, of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under each count and directing that the sentences should run consecutively.2. The case for the prosecution was that on 3-6-1952 these petitioners were found in unlawful possession of I. D. arrack and materials used for the manufacture of I.D. arrack, in the house of A2 occupied both by A.I and A2 at Millennially in Gubbi Taluk and that they thereby committed offences under Ss. 4(1) (a) and 4(1) (g) Prohibition Act. The petitioners pleaded 'not guilt' but the learned trial Magistrate ultimately, convicted and sentenced them as stated above.The petitioners took this judgment in a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›