Karnataka Court November 1959 Judgments
Vithaldas Bhavadas Vs. Yellosa Laxmansa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant238; AIR1960Mys238
(1) The Appellant before me was the plaintiff in the suit. The suit instituted by him was for the recovery of Rs. 1755-9-6 and costs paid by him for the defendant. In the plaint filed by the plaintiff it is stated that the plaintiff had to file this suit against the defendant to recover the said sum which the plaintiff had to pay on behalf of the defendant. This is the cause of action of which the plaintiff's case in the suit is founded. The facts leading up to the filing of this suit may be shortly stated as follows :(2) On 16-2-50 a firm known as Ramnathsa Dharmsa sidling filed a civil suit being C. S. No. 80/1950 against the present plaintiff and the defendant alleging that the defendant as plaintiff's clerk had borrowed Rs. 1,000/- on 2-7-1949 for an on behalf of the plaintiff. In that suit the present plaintiff was Defendant No. 1 and the present defendant was defendant No. 2. The case of the present plaintiff in that case was that the defendant had no authority to receive the mon...
Tag this Judgment!H.V. Rajan Vs. C.N. Gopal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Kant29; AIR1961Mys29; ILR1960KAR151
Hegde, J.1. The plaintiff appeals against the dismissal of his suit i.e., Original Suit No. 52 of 1950-51 in the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore. The facts of the case are fully set out in the judgment of the trial Court. There is no need to repeat the same. We shall briefly state the facts relevant for the decision of the points at controversy in this Court.2. The first defendant is the owner of the 'Moviland Theatre' (suit property). He leased out the same on 29-12-1941 as per Exhibit L (which is also marked as Exhibit IX). For the purpose of this case we may take it that the second defendant in this suit is the lessee thereunder. The lease was for a period of five years and in the ordinary course, it was to expire at the end of February 1947. As per Exhibit IV dated 2-5-1946, the first defendant demanded possession of the leased property on the termination of the lease.But the second defendant as per Exhibit V sought a renewal of the lease, as per Clause 14 i...
Tag this Judgment!Basappa and ors. Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant228; AIR1960Mys228
ORDER1. The appellants were tried before the learned Sessions Judge of Bellary, in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1957 on his file, for the murder of one Mareppa on the midnight of 31-3-1957 at Benakal village, Bellary District. They are also tried for some other offences alleged to have been committed at the time of the said murder. They were convicted under S. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Further appellants 1 and 2(Basappa and Badrigadu respectively) were convicted for an offence under S. 324, for causing hurt to Mareppa, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Appellant No. 3(Chakalabandi Adavappa) was convicted for an offence under S. 324 I.P.C. for causing hurt to P.W. 2(Mariswamappa) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Appellant No. 4(Phothagadu) was convicted under S. 326 I.P.C. for causing grievous hurt to P.W. 2(Mariswamappa) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The several sentences...
Tag this Judgment!Hajisa Imamsa Kairat and ors. Vs. Kalyanrao Anantrao Kulkarni
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Kant86; AIR1961Mys86
Hegde, J. 1. This appeal was referred to a Bench by the learned Chief Justice sitting singly, as it raised an important question of law. In the suit which has given rise to this appeal, the plaintiff-respondent has prayed for a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to remove certain walls and for the restoration of the suit water channel in its original place. He has also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the course of the water channel shown in the plaint. 2. The facts found by the Courts below are: The plaintiff is the owner of R. S. No. 472/1 and 472/2 of Kannur Village; for the last about 30 or 40 years he was taking water to his lauds from a Government well through the Government land in S. No. 472 which adjoins the plaintiff's land; the water was taken by means of a pueca channel which was about 9' in width and 10' in depth; the channel in question was put up by the plaintiff; the defendants have now removed that channel an...
Tag this Judgment!Gurubhaktatilaka N. Sreekantiah and ors. Vs. K. Suryanarayanappa and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant136; AIR1960Mys136
(1) The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff in Original Suit No. 266 of 1951-52 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Hassan. The plaintiff filed the suit to enforce a mortgage, Ex. A, dated 7-7-1919 executed by the 1st defendant and his brother Nanjappa in favour of one Balaguru Venkanna, who later assigned the said mortgage to the plaintiff on 30-9-1944. Nanjappa having died sometime in 2028-29, the 2nd defendant his only son was impleaded as his legal representative and as such interested in the mortgage properties. Those properties are two in number.The first of them was sold on 11-8-1933 in execution of a money decree obtained by the 3rd defendant against the 2nd defendant alone; the 3rd defendant having purchased the said item at the execution sale sold it to the 4th defendant. That was why defendants 3 and 4 were impleaded in the suit. The plaintiff claimed that the suit was in time by reason of certain endorsements contained on the mortgage doc...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Gandhi Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant111; AIR1960Mys111
Sadasivayya, J. (1) The appellant in both these appeals is the same person; he has been holding the position of Executive Engineer, P.W. D., Belgaum division. In Special Case No. 8 of 1956 on the file of the Special; Judge at Belgaum, the appellant was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 161 of the I.P.C. for having accepted a bribe of Rs. 250/- from P.W. 1 Britto on 7-4-1955 and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.The appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 331 of 1957 is directed against this conviction and sentence. In Special Case No. 9 of 1956 on the file of the same Judge, the appellant was tried for the offence of criminal misconduct as defined in Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he has been convicted under Section 5(2) of the said Act and has year and to pay a fine of Rs. 75,000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Saleh Mohammed Ahmed Sait and ors. Vs. M. Enayatulla Mekhri and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Kant104; AIR1961Mys104
N. Sreenivasa Rau, J.1. This is an application under Article 133(1)(a); (b) and (c) of the Constitution of India for the issue of a certificate to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of this Court to R. A. No. 120 of 1950-51. The District Court C. & M. Station, Bangalore, dismissed the suit filed by tome of the present Respondents under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the formulation of a scheme for the management of an institution known as Jumma Masjid, situated in the Civil Station, Bangalore in supersession of the scheme previously framed by that Court. The plaintiffs who purported to represent the Sunni Muslim Community of the Civil Station contended that the whole of that community was interested in the mosque while the previous scheme vested its management only in the representatives of one section of that community, namely, Cutchi Memons. The defendants who belonged to the Cubeb Memon section of the community resisted the suit claiming exclus...
Tag this Judgment!The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. Vs. Pothan Joseph
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Kant98; AIR1961Mys98; ILR1960KAR19
ORDER1. The petitioner who was the appellant in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 68 of 1959 prays for a certificate under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution. The respondent resists the same on two grounds; (i) that the order in appeal (M. A. No. 68/59) is not a judgment, decree or final order' as contemplated in Sub-clause (c) of Clause (1) of Article 133; and (ii) that the case is not a fit one for issuing the certificate prayed for. As we are in agreement with the respondent that the impugned order is not a 'judgment, decree or final order' as contemplated in Article 133, we find it unnecessary to consider whether the case is one where the certificate prayed for should be granted. 2. According to Sri M. K. Nambiar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner the order in question is a 'final order' or at any rate it comes within the scope of the word 'judgment'. The expression 'final order' found in Article 133 is not a new expression. The same words were found in Section 109 of the Civil Proc...
Tag this Judgment!Thayamma Vs. Giriyamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant176; AIR1960Mys176; ILR1959KAR1021
(1) The facts necessary for the purpose of deciding the point of law argued are:(2) One Hanumanthaboyi and his brother Sannaboyi died leaving behind them their mother, the first defendant and two sisters, who were originally plaintiffs in the suit. The suit properties belonged to Hanumanthaboyi and Sannaboyi. The first defendant (1st respondent in this appeal) had taken a second husband after the death of her previous husband, the father of Hanumanthaboyi and Sannaboyi. Subsequent to the death of the last owners disputes arose between the mother and daughters as regards the succession to the properties of the deceased Hanumanthaboyi and Sannaboyi.The Courts below have come to the conclusion that the respondent (1st defendant) had succeeded to the properties of her deceased sons. But it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the 1st defendant (Respondent) is not entitled to succeed to her sons as he had taken a second husband. The right of a mother who had taken a second husband t...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumanthappa and anr. Vs. Korisetty Sivalingappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant139; AIR1960Mys139; ILR1959KAR1019
Hegde, J.(1) The only point argued before us is that the respondent had no right to file an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, apportioning the compensation. According to Sri Gopivallabha Iyengar, an order passed under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, is not a 'decree' as it is not a decision in a suit. In support of his contention he has relied on the ratio of the decision in Rajagopala Chettiar v. Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras, : AIR1934Mad103 . That was a case arising under S. 84 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act.But there is no doubt that its ratio decidendi helps the appellant. The High Court in India have consistently taken the view that a decision under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, is a 'decree' and as such the aggrieved party has a right of appeal. See Mahalinga Kudumban v. Theetharappa Mudaliar, AIR 1929 Mad 223: Venkata Reedi v. Adhinarayana, : AIR1929Mad351 ; Muthuvijaya Raghunatha v. Karuppiah. AIR 1939 Mad 76 and Reghunathdas H...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »