Karnataka Court February 1959 Judgments
Sakrappa Neelappa Vs. Shidramappa Gangappa Katti and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant217; AIR1960Mys217
(1) This second appeal relates to a property which, according to the plaintiffs, was gifted to plaintiff 1 and to his brother Kallappa as early as in 1914. They claim to be in possession of half the property and filed the suit to recover possession of the remaining half from the three defendants. According to the plaintiffs, the property was thus divided by reason of a compromise in an earlier suit filed by the present plaintiffs against one Channabasavva who is claimed to be the adoptive mother of the defendant. It is further alleged that, according to the terms of the compromise, Channabasavva was to enjoy half the gifted property till her death for her maintenance and that the property was to revert back to the plaintiffs after her death. She having died on 17-9-1948 the plaintiffs claimed possession of the half share in her possession. The defendant denied the plaintiffs' case by saying that there was no suit and that it is not valid and binding on him. He further claimed that he w...
Tag this Judgment!Chanabasappa Vs. Narasing Rao Gunde Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Kant253; AIR1959Mys253; ILR1959KAR1
1. This second appeal raises a small but very important point of law. It relates to the interpretation of the expression 'time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree' as mentioned in Sub-section 2 of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. The suit in this case was No. 121/1 of 1951-52 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gulbarga. The Judgment in that suit was delivered on 30-9-54 but the decree was actually signed as late as on 21-12-54. The appeal No. 37/4/56 was filed in the District Court of Gulbarga on .23-12-54. A preliminary objection having been raised that the appeal was barred under Art, 152 of the Limitation Act, the same was upheld by the learned District Judge and it was dismissed on 28-3-57. It is against this that the present appeal has been filed.2. According to the learned District Judge, tho period of 30 days under Article 152 of the Limitation Act has to be counted from the date of the decree which means the date of the judgment ) i.e., 80-9-54. That is how the app...
Tag this Judgment!Sangannagouda Vs. Kalkangouda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant147; AIR1960Mys147; ILR1959KAR577
Iqbal Husain, J. (1) This is a second appeal by plaintiff Sanganna Gouda against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. The plaintiff who is a minor as represented by his natural father and guardian Shiva Sangan Gowda filed a suit against the defendants Kalkan Gouda (first defendant-first respondent and Sangangouda (second defendant-second respondent) for a declaration that he is the adopted son of the second defendant-second respondent Sangangouda and the alleged adoption of Kalkan gouda, the first defendant-first respondent is invalid.Both the Courts below have held that the adoption of Kalkan Gouda has been proved. They have relied upon the registered adoption deed dated 26-5-1950 executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant, by which the first defendant has been adopted as the son of the second defendant. They have also relied upon a subsequent suit filed by the first defendant against the second defendant in the Munsiff's Court at Kustagi, Richur Di...
Tag this Judgment!Balvant Yadneshwar Vs. Srinivas Appaji Kulkarni
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Kant244; AIR1959Mys244
S.S. Malimath, J.1. This second appeal involves a very important point of law. It is admitted in fact, it has been decided in a previous suit--that the wall in dispute between the houses of the plaintiff and the defendants is a party wall. The plaintiffs case is that the first defendant has built on that wall another portion nearly 6 1/2' high. As this has been done without the plaintiff's consent and as the defendant has no right to do so, the plaintiff has prayed for a mandatory injunction requiring that the wall be pulled down and brought back to its original position. The contention of defendant 1 was that it was a party wall in the sense that half of it on the defendant's side belonged to defendant 1 and the other half to the plaintiff. He also pleaded that he raised the wall with the plaintiff's consent. Defendant 2 contended that he had nothing to do with the suit wall and that he was unnecessarily made a party to the suit. At the trial, the first defendant did not press his con...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Usman Saheb Vs. the State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Kant221; AIR1959Mys221; 1959CriLJ1095
ORDER1. This Revision petition is directed against an order passed by the District Magistrate, South Kanara in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1958 confirming the conviction for offences under Section 38 read with Section 22 and Section 123(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. He has also confirmed the sentence of fine of Rs. 20/-passed by the Judicial Sub-Magistrate, Bantwal in C. C. No. 1394 of 1957.2. The case for the Prosecution was that the petitioner was driving a motor car bearing No. MYR. 1136 on the public road at B. Section road from Mangalore towards Bantwal side at about 3-35 P. M. on 13-11-1957 and when the same was checked by the Head Constable it was found that there were 30 bags of cement inside the car. Admittedly the vehicle that was driven by the petitioner was a motor car and it had been registered as such and not as a goods vehicle. The petitioner had no permit to carry goods or any fitness certificate to be used as a goods vehicle. A charge-sheet for an offence punishable unde...
Tag this Judgment!Naminath Vs. Govind Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant214; AIR1960Mys214
ORDER(1) This is a review application filed by the plaintiff in the original suit (the present petitioner) praying that the judgment passed in Appeal No. 75/2 of 1954-55 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad be reviewed as per the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The ground for review is that the plaintiff-petitioner had obtained a license under the Hyderabad Money Lenders' Act for the year 1358F. i.e., at the time of the suit transaction which took place on the 17th Meher 1358F. But when his appeal came up for decision before the Hyderabad High Court, his Advocate under a mistaken impression represented that the plaintiff-petitioner had no license at the time of the suit transaction.Hence an adverse order was passed against his claim by the Hyderabad High Court. He alleges that in fact he had a license at the relevant period, but the fact of the existence of the said license had escaped his mind. It was found only on 20-12-1955 after the...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Tavara Naika
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Kant193; AIR1959Mys193; 1959CriLJ1004; ILR1959KAR239
M. Sadasivayya, J. 1. The question which arises in this Criminal Revision Case, is one which has to be decided under Sub-section (1) of Section 185 of the Cr. P. C. The respondent had been committed by the Munsiff-Magistrate of Tiplur, to take his trial before the Court of Sessions, Bangalore Division, for offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code According to the charges which had been framed by the Munsiff-Magistrate, the offence under Section 366 had been committed at Gubehalli of Chikkanaikanahalli Taluk.It is not disputed that the said village in Chikkanaikanahalli Taluk is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge of Bangalore Division. So tar as the offence, under Section 376 of the I. P. C. was concerned, the charge disclosed that the offence had been committed at Tarikere and Peelapura. These two last mentioned places are not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, Bangalore Division, but are within the territorial jurisdic...
Tag this Judgment!Baswanneppa Yellappa and anr. Vs. Basavannappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant83; AIR1960Mys83
(1) One important point of limitation arises in this Second Appeal and that is as to whether the Article applicable is 142 or 144 of the Limitation Act. According to the plaintiffs the property in suit which is a house together with an open site, originally belonged to one Bhimappa Hadapad. After his death it came to his son, who was originally defendant 2 in this case and who has been later on transposed as plaintiff No. 3. The plaintiff's claim to have purchased the suit property from that person on 14-5-1948 for Rs. 200/-. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 entered into possession and made wahivat of it. In June 1948, defendant 1 caused obstruction to the wahivat. Plaintiffs therefore filed a suit in L. C. No. 90/1949 against the defendants. In the meantime, the defendants managed to dispossess plaintiffs 1 and 2 and they entered into possession. Hence this suit was filed for pos-possession against defendants 1 and 2. The defendants denied plaintiff's title to the property and also their possession...
Tag this Judgment!Dayaram Surajmall Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad and Andhra
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-1959
Reported in: [1960]38ITR12(KAR); [1960]38ITR12(Karn)
Iqbal Husain, J.1. This statement of the case under section 82(2) of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act was made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Branch, in consequence of a direction issued by the Bench of the Hyderabad High Court in its order in Case No. 114/B 5-2 of 1953-54 dated April 6, 1954, calling upon the Tribunal to refer the following question for the decision of the Hyderabad High Court. On the integration of States this case has come up for decision before this court. The question referred to is as follows : 'Whether the Income-tax Office indicated to the assessee his intention to assess on the basis of the average yield shown by other millers and whether a reasonable opportunity was given to the assessee to adduce evidence in rebuttal of the said average yield being made application to the assessee ?' 2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows : The petitioner-assessee constitutes a firm trading in oils and cotton at Gulbarga with branches at Latur and other pl...
Tag this Judgment!Dyaviah and anr. Vs. Shivamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Kant188; AIR1959Mys188
1. This second appeal arises out of a decree in a suit where the plaintiffs sought to avoid the sale transaction purported to have been entered into by their predecessor-in-title on the ground that she was a minor at the date of the transaction. The plaintiffs claim to be the heirs of one Thayamma. She and her brother Chikkanna were owners of the suit property, each having a half and half interest in it.Both of them purported to sell the suit property to defendant 1 under the sale deed Ext. IV dated 24-10-40. After the document was duly executed by both of them, it was taken to the Sub-Registrar for registration. He suspected that Thayamma may not be a major. Although he registered the sale deed as executed by Chikkanna, he declined to register it as executed by Thayamma with an endorsement to that effect below the document. Nothing further appears to have been done to rectify the matter and it appears that defendant 1 continued to be in possession of the whole of the suit property.Def...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »