Karnataka Court October 1958 Judgments
Nilawwa Komm Malashiddappa and anr. Vs. Virupaxappa Mahantappa and anr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant99; AIR1959Mys99; ILR1958KAR874; (1958)36MysLJ865
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The appellants arc the respondents in Darkhast No. 313/44 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bijapur. The decree under execution was one passed by the Bombay High Court on its original side. It was transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bijapur, for execution. Pending execution the original judgment-debtor died. The decree-holders moved the Executing Court as per Exhibit 62 dated 28-9-1951 to implead the present appellants as the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor and to proceed with the execution against them.The decree-holders no doubt represented to the Executing Court that the judgment-debtor died six months prior to the said application though in fact he had died on 9-10-1947. The appellants were duly notified about the execution against them. They did not object to their being impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor, nor to the jurisdiction of the Executing Court to proceed wi...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Puttaramiah Vs. Hajee Ibrahim Essack and Sons
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant94; AIR1959Mys94; (1958)36MysLJ814
K.S. Hegde J. 1. The first judgment-debtor in Execution Case No. 115 of 1954, on the file of the learned Second Additional District Judge, Bangalore, is the appellant in this Court. He has been ordered to be arrested as per the order dated 13-6-1955. This order is the subject-matter of the present appeal. The only ground urged is that there has not been due compliance of Section 51, C. P. C. The appellant complains that the Court below has not found that the Decree-holder has established any of the requirements set out in Section 51 and without such a finding, the order of arrest is not sustainable,On the other hand the learned counsel for the decree-holder (respondent) contends that the order that has been passed is one of arrest and us such Section 51, C. P. C., is inapplicable. According to him, the relevant provisions are Rules 37 and 40 of Order XXI, C. P. C. He urges that Section 51 comes into play only when an order of detention is to be passed. To properly understand the respec...
Tag this Judgment!Basanna Vs. Appa Rao and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant227; AIR1959Mys227; ILR1958KAR853
Mir Iqbal Hussain, J.1. This is a second appeal filed by the original plaintiff Basanna against defendant Appa Rao who is the first respondent and Somanna who is respondent 2. One Shivabai widow of Bhimanna was impleaded in the suit as second defendant. But as she died, her name was struck off in the trial Court itself. Plaintiff filed a suit in the court of the Munsiff, Gulbarga in O. S. No. 338/1 of 1952. He based his suit for possession of lands survey Nos. 94, 96, 97 and 100 to the extent of half towards the north, situated in Balgonda village, Gulbarga Taluk, and survey Nos. 10 and 37 to the extent of one-third towards the south of the same village. He also prayed for a declaration of shikmi in respect of all the lands.2. The plaintiff in the former suit alleged that he is the adopted son of one Bhimanna who was the original owner of the suit properties; that after adoption, he lived with the said Bhimanna and as such, as heir of Bhimanna, he was in possession of the suit properti...
Tag this Judgment!G. Gurubasappa Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, City Municipality ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant93; AIR1959Mys93
N. Sreenivasa Rau, J. 1. The appellant (now deceased and represented by his L. Rs) has claimed additional compensation of Rs. 5000/- over the amount awarded by the District Court, Bangalore, for a piece of vacant land situated in the Jumma Masjid Road, very near Avenue Road, Bangalore city. The Land Acquisition Officer has made an award at the rate of Rs. 25/- per Sq. yard apart from the value of the structure on the land and the statutory allowance. The learned Third Additional District Judge enhanced the award amount by increasing the rate to Rs. 50/- per sq. yard.2. It is urged by the learned advocate for the appellant that, considering the location of the plot, the compensation awarded is too low. He has examined 7 witnesses including himself. But that evidence affords to firm basis for arriving at any enhanced valuation as claimed by the appellant C. W. 1 speaks about the shop owned by him in the Avenue Road and the rent fetched by it. C. W. 2 speaks generally about the prevailing...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. G. Veerana Goud
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant52; AIR1959Mys52; 1959CriLJ342; (1958)36MysLJ829
ORDER1. One Veerannagowda applied to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Bellary, for a copy of the judgment in C.C. No. 1882/54. The applicant described himself as a third party apparently meaning thereby that he was not a party to the proceedings in the criminal case. This application was supported by an affidavit in which also the applicant stated that he was a third party and added that the copy was required for production in the District Court. The learned Magistrate rejected the copy application. The material part of his order runs as follows:'Section 548, Criminal Procedure Code, lays down that a person affected by a judgment of a Criminal Court is entitled for a copy of the judgment. In this case the applicant is neither a party nor was a witness -- His affidavit ................that ho is a party is false. The purpose for which copy is applied for is not stated. Lastly, the applicant has not shown how he is affected. Hence application is rejected.'Against this order, the applicant ...
Tag this Judgment!Mallangowda and ors. Vs. Gavisiddangowda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant194; AIR1959Mys194
Iqbal Hussain, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Koppal, Richer District passed in Appeal No. 4/4 of 1358 Fasli confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff, Koppal, in O. S. No. 122/1 of 1856F. Even though this is an appeal against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, points of law have been raised in this appeal which require consideration.According to the Civil Procedure Code of Hyderabad, greater latitude is given to the appellants in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Section 602 of the Hyderabad Civil Procedure Code) than it is under the Civil Procedure Code as applicable throughout India. As this suit was filed long prior to the coming into force of the latter, opportunity is given to the parties to argue both on facts as well as on law.2. The facts of the case arc briefly as follows:3. Plaintiff Gavisiddanna Gowda who is the respondent in the first appellate Court as we...
Tag this Judgment!Puttananje Gowda Vs. Nanje Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-17-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant61; AIR1959Mys61; ILR1958KAR830; (1958)36MysLJ856
1. This appeal arises from a suit filed by the appellant under Section 77 of the Registration Act for a decree directing the registration of a document purporting to be a sale deed in favour of the appellant. Various questions arose for consideration, but the learned Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that it had been filed beyond 30 days from the date of the order of the District Registrar refusing registration.The Civil Judge, Hassan, has confirmed the decision on the same ground as also on the ground that the appeal preferred by the plaintiff (appellant) before the District Registrar was not an appeal filed in accordance with law arid was itself barred by limitation. In this matter he took a view contrary to that of the learned Munsif. He has, however, vouchsafed no reasons in support of his view.As regards the suit itself it is seen that the order of the District Registrar refusing registration purports to have been made on 13-8-1956. The suit was filed on 15-9-1956. The plain...
Tag this Judgment!Muddanna Shetty and anr. Vs. Maire Alias Laxmi Heggadthi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-17-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant162; AIR1959Mys162; ILR1958KAR826; (1958)36MysLJ836
ORDER1. The respondent sued the petitioners who were her tenants for damages resulting from their unauthorisedly cutting some trees standing on the leasehold. The suit which was instituted and tried as a small cause suit was decreed though for a smaller amount than that claimed. The petitioners have come up in revision.2. In addition to challenging the decision in regard to its merits it is urged by the petitioners that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the claim came under Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The specific article relied upon are Articles 4, 11, and 35(ii). It is urged that in seeking to recover the damages for the value of the trees the plaintiff was trying to assert her interest in immovable property, which is covered by Article 4, or she must be regarded as seeking determination or enforcement of her right or interest in the immoveable property, which comes under Article 11, and that in any event the plaint allegations...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ramachandra Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-17-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Kant65; AIR1960Mys65; (1960)ILLJ210Kant
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.(1) The Petitioner before us was by an order of the Government of Mysore dated 4th February 1957 appointed as Principal, B. Education. Training College, Gulbarga. The said order of appointment reads as follows:'Sri Ramachandra M.A., M.Ed., Lecturer, Government Teachers College, Gulbarga, is appointed as Principal, B.Ed., Training College Gulbarga. He will be on probation for one year with effect from the date he takes charge of the post.'The said B.Ed., Training College, Gulbarga was originally affiliated to the Osmania University. Prior to the appointment of the Petitioner as the Principal of the said College the 2nd respondent who was the Inspector of Schools, Gulbarga, was acting as Principal. On the 25th July 1956 the Government of Hyderabad issued a notification whereby the method of recruitment and qualification for the post of Principal, B.Ed., Training College was prescribed.As the 2nd Respondent did not possess the prescribed qualifications for the said pos...
Tag this Judgment!Madappa Chidri Vs. Apparao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Kant310; AIR1960Mys310; ILR1960KAR892
ORDER(1) This revision petition relates to a suit brought by the petitioner for the cancellation of two sale deeds executed in favour of respondents 1 and 2.(2) That suit was originally instituted in the District Court, Payaga, in the erstwhile state of Hyderabad. But, after the abolition of the Jahgirs, the suit was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bidar. On March 6, 1953, the suit was dismissed by that Court on the technical ground that the suit was brought on behalf of the plaintiff, who although, a major was represented to be a minor. From that decree, the plaintiff appealed to the High Court of Hyderabad and when that appeal was still pending in the High Court of Hyderabad, there was the reorganisation of states which took place on November 1, 1956. (3) Under the provisions of Section 62(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, such proceedings pending in the High Court of Hyderabad, as were certified by the Chief Justice of that High Court, having regard to the plac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »