Karnataka Court November 1958 Judgments
Mulimani Sanna Basavarajappa Vs. Basavannappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant152; AIR1959Mys152; ILR1959KAR105; (1958)36MysLJ933
ORDER1. This revision petition is presented against the order made by the court below directing the award of interim maintenance to the minor plaintiff by defendant 2, pending the disposal of a partition suit. 2. That suit was brought by the plaintiff claiming to be the son of defendant 2. Defendant 2 denied that the plaintiff was his son and repudiated the right of the plaintiff to a partition of the properties in his possession. During the pendency of that suit, the plaintiff made an application for the award of interim maintenance. The learned Civil Judge made an order directing defendant 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 25/- a month by way of interim maintenance. 3. In this revision petition, which is brought by defendant 2 it is contended by Mr. Motaiya, learned Advocate for the petitioner that the learned Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to make the order under revision. Mr. Motaiya contends that the learned Civil Judge, in a case like this where the claim of the plaintiff is disputed and no...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Munibasappa Vs. Gurusiddaraja Desikendra Swamigal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant139; AIR1959Mys139
ORDERA.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. This is a revision petition presented by a tenant against whom an application had been made by a person who claimed to be his landlord for his eviction on the ground that he was in default in regard to arrears of rent payable by him. On 6-10-1956, an order was made in those proceedings ex parte, ordering the eviction of the tenant. The tenant, thereupon, made an application on October 15, 1956, for getting that ex parte order set aside. The allegation that he made was that on the date on which the ex parte order was made against him he was present in Court although his advocate could not be present on account of his illness as a result of which he was being treated on that date in a private nursing home. According to him, when the case was called earlier in the day, although the tenant appeared before the Court, the-landlord did not. The case was accordingly kept by and was never called although he was waiting in the verandah of the court-hall till 5 p. m. ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaji Madhavarao Khannukar Vs. Mahmed-husen Budansaheb and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant127; AIR1959Mys127; (1958)36MysLJ945
ORDER1. This revision petition arises out of a suit brought by one Mohamad Hussain, who is the respondent in this revision petition, under the provisions of Section 9 of the specific Relief Act. His case was that he was the tenant of the petitioner in this revision petition. That landlord was defendant 3 in the original suit. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that one Kashimsaheb Gavas, who was not a party to the suit brought by the plaintiff, was the agent of the plaintiff who. under an agreement Exhibit 81, had to manage a hotel which the plaintiff was running in the leased premises, under the terms and conditions incorporated in that agreement. The plaintiff's allegation was that on 4-1-1956, defendant 3 the landlord took possession of the leased building otherwise than in due course of law in collusion with that agent Kashimsaheb Gavas. The plaintiff, therefore, brought a suit for recovery of possession of the leased property of which he was so dispossessed. The suit was resisted by...
Tag this Judgment!The Metal Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. P. Colombi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Kant1; AIR1960Mys1; ILR1959KAR57
Malimath, J. (1) This second appeal arises out of execution proceedings. But it raises a very important point of law as to whether a decree passed by a foreign court prior to the Constitution is executable in another State after the Constitution by which both the courts have now become parts of the Indian Union. The decree in question was passed on 13-1-1950 by the High Court of Calcutta in its Original Jurisdiction the defendant who was then a resident of Kolar in the Mysore State remaining ex parte. On 30-9-53 the decree was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Kolar. On 25-1-54, an execution petition was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kolar, the same having been registered as Ex. 2 of 1954.The judgment-debtor raised several contentions, one of them being that inasmuch he declined to submit himself to the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court, the judgment of that court being one of a foreign court, was not valid and binding on him. It was thus contended t...
Tag this Judgment!S.T. Mallasattappa Vs. the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant114; AIR1959Mys114
S.K. Das Gupta, C.J.1. This petition is directed against a temporary permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority on 23-9-1958. The 3rd respondent was running his bus under a permit obtained for that purpose in the route between Bangalore and Tunkar, Since 1952 he had given up operating on the said route and his permit expired by efflux of time without renewal. In the year 1957 he applied that he should be permitted to resume operation of his service in the same route. That application was made to the Regional Transport Authority. On 10-6-1958 he made an application for grant of a temporary permit pending the consideration of his said application.The Regional Transport Authority granted a temporary permit in his favour on 14-6-1958. Thereafter on 18-9-1958 his original application which was made in the year 1957 for permission to resume the operation of his bus service in the said route, came up for consideration by the Regional Transport Authority. The said Authority held that t...
Tag this Judgment!Kumbara Narasimhappa Vs. Lakkanna and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant148; AIR1959Mys148; ILR1959KAR47
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage bond 'filed by the appellant against defendant 1 who is the mortgagor. Defendant 2 was impleaded as he is a subsequent mortgagee, Defendant I remained ex parte while defendant 2 alone contested the suit. He denied the mortgage deed and contended that the plain-tiff and defendant 1 brought about the mortgage deed by collusion with a view to defraud him. He urged that it was not supported by consideration. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs claim while, on appeal, the civil Judge dismissed sed his suit, on the ground that the mortgage bond in suit was not duly proved by the plaintiff. In this appeal also respondent 1 who is the mortgagor remains absent; respondent 2 alone contests this appeal. 2. The main contention on behalf of the appellant is that there is no specific denial of the execution of the mortgage bond and hence it was not incumbent on the plaintiff to prove that document by calling an attesting witness. As a resul...
Tag this Judgment!Dasappa Vs. the Addl. Dist. Magistrate and Deputy Commr. Tumkur Dist. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Kant57; AIR1960Mys57; 1960CriLJ379; ILR1959KAR19
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.(1) This petition is directed against two notifications both dated 7th November 1958, one of which was issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Tumkur, who is the 1st respondent before us and the other by the Tahsildar-Magistrate, Sira Taluk, who is the 2nd respondent before us. By the first notification the District Magistrate purporting to exercise power under Section 39(1) of the Mysore Police act, 1908, prohibited all the people in Sira Town the carrying of arms, cudgels or other weapons, the carrying, collection and preparation of stones or other missiles or other instruments or means of casting or impelling missiles, the exhibition of persons or of corpses or figures thereof, the public utterances of cries, singing of songs, playing of music, delivery of harangues, etc., for a period of one week from 10th November 1958. By the said notification the District Magistrate also ordered that if anybody wanted to take out a religious procession, they should take...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Gangadhar Vs. Raghavendra Bharathi Swamiji
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Kant166; AIR1960Mys166; ILR1959KAR25
ORDER(1) The petitioner in this revision petition was the defendant in the Court of the Civil Judge, Kunita, in which the respondent was the plaintiff, who brought a suit against him for the recovery of Rs. 491-3-0 which amount, according to the plaintiff, had been received by the defendant from the Collector between the year 1949 and the year 1952. It is not disputed that these amounts represented the grants which the plaintiff was entitled to recover from the Collector. The plaintiff is the Matadhipathi of a Mutt known as Ramachandrapurmath and the case for the plaintiff was that the defendant, who was an agent appointed by the predecessor Swamiji, had collected the grants due to the Mutt, in the manner mentioned above, masquerading himself as the agent of the plaintiff Mutt although his agency had terminated when the predecessor Swamiji died. The allegation in the plaint was, as I understand it, that the defendant had wrongfully retained those monies which he had collected in that c...
Tag this Judgment!Pujari Narasappa and anr. Vs. Shaik Hazrat and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Kant59; AIR1960Mys59
Miriqbal Hussain, J. (1) This is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs Poojari Narasappa and Kallurappa against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Raichur in O. S. No. 12/1 of 1953. The facts of the case are as follows :(2) Plaintiffs' suit is for specific performance of a contract to sell four lands survey Nos. 769, 770, 771 and 773 in Kallur Village, Manvi Taluk, Raichur: District. The plaintiffs-appellants alleged that the first defendant--first respondent, Shaik Hazarath agreed to sell these lands to them as per agreement dated 24th Azur 1359 F corresponding to 24th October 1949 for a consideration of Rs. 8, 000/- (I.G) and he executed the agreement marked as Exhibit I in the case in favour of the plaintiffs. It is further plaintiffs the first defendant--first respondent has sold the lands to defendants 2 and 3 Dodda Mahadeva and Sanna Mahadeva minors by guardian Master Siddappa for a sum of Rs. 12, 000/- as per the sale deed marked as Exhibit A. 1 in the case dat...
Tag this Judgment!Boregowda and anr. Vs. Subbaramiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant265; AIR1959Mys265; ILR1959KAR168
N. Sreenivasa Rau, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act by claimants 6 and 7 against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mandya, holding that the reference made to him under Section 30 of the Act by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mandya, was incompetent.2. The circumstances leading to the order of the learned Subordinate Judge may be briefly narrated. The acquisition of 38 guntas in Survey No. 74 of R. Kodinalli village, Mandya Taluk, was notified in the Mysore Gazette of 19-3-1942 under Section 4 of the Act. The names of four persons who figured later as claimants 1 to 4 before the learned Subordinate Judge were mentioned as those of the Khatedars and Anubhavadars of the land as would appear from the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. In the enquiry before the Land Acquisition Officer no one else seems to have appeared.He made an award on 30-4-1944 directing that the amount determined by him as compensation was to be paid to the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »