Karnataka Court August 1957 Judgments
N.S. Nagaraja Rao Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant23; AIR1958Mys23
Das Gupta, C.J.1. The petitioner before us was originally serving as a Conductor in Bangalore Transport Co. Ltd. On 1st October 1956 the Government took over the said concern and all the employees of the original Company continued to be the employees of the Government. The present petitioner also continued to bo employed by the Government as a Conductor on the same terms and conditions on which he served the previous company. On 26-10-56 the General Manager of the Bangalore Transport Service passed an order the validity of which is now being questioned in this petition. The said order reads as follows:'THE BANGALORE TRANSPORT SERVICE. 26th Oct. 1956. Ref. : Report No. 65-66 dated 21st Oct. 1956 from the Garage Officer. Order: Sri M. S. Nagaraja Rao, conductor, token No. 115 is reported to be irregular in his duties. On 20th and 21st Oct. 1956 ho has caused missing of trips. During Sept. he has absented himself for 8 days and in October for 6 days. As he is absenting himself habitually ...
Tag this Judgment!Muslim Orphanage Through M.E. Mekhri, Bangalore Vs. Khatoon Bi and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant28; AIR1958Mys28; ILR1957KAR130; (1957)35MysLJ341
Das Gupta, C.J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. The suit out of which this appeal arises is for a declaration that the property mentioned in the schedule annexed to the plant is wakf property and for appointment of the plaintiff to the office of Mutawalli and for putting the plaintiff in the management of the schedule property. In order to determine the question, which was raised at the hearing of the appeal, it would be necessary to refer to the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiff is the Muslim Orphanage, a registered body, and it has filed the present suit by its Secretary. Defendants 1 to 4 are the descendants of the sister of the settlor and Defendant 5 and 6 are transferees of the properties mentioned in the plaint.In the plaint it is alleged that one Abdul Azeez made a deed of trust on 25-9-1937 (where-by he made the property in question a wakf) for the maintenance and support of his family with an ultimate benefit expressly reserved in favour of the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Revanna Devaru Vs. Sanna Setty and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant32; AIR1958Mys32; (1957)35MysLJ251
1. This is a plaintiff's Second Appeal and arises in the following circumstances:--The first respondent Sanna Setty, who is the undivided brother of respondents 2, 3 and 4, borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from the present appellant and executed a registered mortgage-deed dated 12th December, 1936. It was a usufructuary mortgage deed. The mortgagor had agreed to deliver possession of all the properties to the possession of the mortgagee. The mortgagor did not deliver possession of the properties but continued to be in possession of those properties.The mortgagee, that is the present appellant, filed a suit on 11th December, 1948 O. S. No. 142 of 1948-49 in the Court of the Second Munsiff, Mysore for the recovery of not only the principal amount but also interest, in all a sum of Rs. 2,000/-from out of the mortgaged properties. In the mean-while the mortgagor and his undivided bro hers had sold one of the items of the properties to the 5th respondent (12th defendant) for a sum of Rs. 1,000...
Tag this Judgment!Jade Bhaskara Naik Vs. Mariappala Basappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant14; AIR1958Mys14; ILR1957KAR120; (1957)35MysLJ246
1. The appellant before me is the purchaser of the property in suit in an execution sale. He claims a declaration that he is the hawkdar of the schedule land as he is in possession and that he is entitled to recover Rs. 676/- being the crop compensation for the year 1946-47 and Rs. 264-1-0 being the reconditioning charges, making together a sum of Rs. 940/1/-. The decree in execution of which he purchased the property in question was a decree obtained in O. S. No. 269 of 1930-40 against defendants 1 and 2 in this suit by one Yalegara Durgappa. The decree-holder, after he had obtained the said decree, assigned it to the present appellant. In execution of the said decree the property in suit was attached on 14th December 1939. It was thereafter sold, and was purchased by the present appellant. The said sale was confirmed on 31st May 1946. The plaintiff's case is that thereafter he obtained delivery of possession of the said property on 31st October 1947 through Court and has since been i...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Anjani
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant34; AIR1958Mys34; 1958CriLJ395; ILR1957KAR93; (1957)35MysLJ228
ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Bangalore Sessions Case No. 12 of 1956 in the following circumstances:2. The accused Anjani was put on his trial for an offence under Section 436 of thy Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he intentionally committed mischief by setting file to the dwelling house (hut) belonging to one Poojamma in A.K. Hatti attached to Thimmasandra village, Nelamangala Taluk on 24-5-1956, before the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The case was tried with the aid of Jury. The Jury returned an unanimous verdict of not guilty. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge disagreed with the verdict of the jury. He was of the opinion that the accused was guilty End has therefore made this reference under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to this Court for such orders as this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.3. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Nanjedevaru Vs. H.V. Rama Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Kant173; AIR1959Mys173
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit instituted by the appellant in S. A. 56/52-53 for a declaration of title and for possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal, the decree of the trial Court was reversed and the plaintiff was declared entitled to 2/3 share of the suit property and the defendant to the remaining 1/3 share. Both the parties felt aggrieved by the said decision and each has filed an appeal against the same. S. A. 92/52-53 has been filed by the defendant in the suit and S. A. 56/52-53 has been filed by the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff's case is that he had purchased the suit properties under Exhibits A and B on 23-4-1943 and 3-5-1943. The allegation in the plaint is that the said properties belonged to one Shamanna and his two sons, Narayana and Subrahmanya, who are members of an undivided joint Hindu family, and they sold the said properties to the plaintiff and put him in possession thereof.The defendant claims under an agreeme...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Rao and ors. Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant1; AIR1958Mys1; 1958CriLJ54; ILR1957KAR81; (1957)35MysLJ237
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. These ten appeals arise out of an unusual case, tried by the aid of Assessors in which ten police constables attached to the Police Station House in a village called Chincholi were the accused. The Police Sub Inspector attached to that Police Station house WHS A-11 and its head constable was. A-12. All the twelve accused were tried before the Court of Session for offences said to have been committed by them on the 6th of March, 1954. A-1 was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to death. A-2 to A-10 were convicted of offences punishable under S. 302 read with Ss. 34 and 149 of the Penal Code. They were sentenced to transportation for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5/- or one month's rigorous imprisonment in default. A-11 and A-12 were acquitted of the charges on which they were tried. A-1 to A-10 have appealed to this Court against their convictions and sentences and the State has appealed from the order of 'acquittal o...
Tag this Judgment!K.C.N. Gowda and Bros. Vs. Molakram Tekchand and Sons
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant10; AIR1958Mys10; ILR1957KAR72; (1957)35MysLJ221
Das Gupta, C.J. 1. The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants before us. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3900/- being the advance paid and damages due on a contract for sale of 19 bales of yarn to the plaintiffs by the defendants. The facts, necessary to be stated for the purpose of this appeal, are as follows : On 15th February 1951 the plaintiffs entered into a contract with the defendants whereby the defendants agreed to sell to the plaintiffs 19 bales of yarn of different Mills as mentioned in the contract, that is to say, 7 bales (Murugan) of 200 lbs. each, 7 bales (Kumaran) of 200 lbs. each, 4 bates (Karthakeya) of 200 lbs. each and 1 bale (Jayalakshmi) of 200 lbs. It was stipulated in the said contract that the delivery was to be in the first week of March 1951. The other material term of the contract was that the rate at which the said goods were to be sold was Rs. 87-8-0 (Rupees Eighty-seven and annas eight only)...
Tag this Judgment!C. Venkateshiah Vs. M. Venkatakrishniah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant20; AIR1958Mys20; (1957)35MysLJ232
1. This appeal has been fully argued before me by the learned Advocates for both the parties. The facts which are necessary to be set out for understanding the position of this appeal may be shortly stated as follows:2. The suit was a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The mortgage in question came into existence sometime in the year 1894. One of the points in dispute between the parties before me is whether or not the said mortgage on its true construction, is a simple mortgage or a usufructuary mortgage. Before the said mortgage was executed the mortgagees were already in possession of the property in question by virtue of a lease executed by the mortgagors in their favour.The mortgage deed in question was executed during the continuance of the said lease and by the terms of the said mortgage deed the mortgagees were entitled to appropriate the rent which was payable to the mortgagors under the said lease towards interest due on the said mortgage. The lease thereafter came to an end....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›