Karnataka Court March 1959 Judgments
In Re: Mahalingayya Muddayya Pujari
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Kant185; AIR1959Mys185; 1959CriLJ881
1. The Criminal Appeals 321, 326 and 327 of 1957 have been heard together. The appellant in these three appeals was the accused in Sessions Cases Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of 1957, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Belgaum. In the year 1952-53 and for some years prior to that, the accused was a Village Postman who was attached to Katkol Branch Post Office, which was under the Gokak Post Office.The village Chikop was within the beat of the accused. In the course of his duties as such postman he had been on trusted with three V. P. P. articles, each of them being of the value of Rs. 25/-and odd for delivery to the addressee Vaikunthaswami or Venkataswami Nirupadimath. One of these three was parcel hearing No. 80, which is material for the purposes of Sessions Case No. 22 of 1957; the remaining two, namely parcel No. 74 and parcel No. 59 are dealt with in Sessions cases Nos. 23 and 24 respectively.In each of these cases, it had been alleged by the prosecution that the addressee was a fictitious...
Tag this Judgment!Ramappa Gudadappa Gudadannavar Vs. Chandangouda Neelangouda Goudar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant260; AIR1960Mys260; ILR1959KAR585
(1) Defendant No. 1 in the suit is the appellant before me. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was instituted by the plaintiff claiming as reversioner of one Hanamgouda, deceased, for possession of the suit land. Defendant No. 2 is the widow of the said Hanamgouda. She executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 of the suit properties for a sum of Rs. 1200/-. The widow remarried in the year 1948.Thereafter, this suit was filed on 4-8-1951 by the plaintiff claiming to be reversionary heir of the said Hanamgouda. The plaintiff's case was that the sale in favour of defendant No. 1 was not supported by legal necessity. His further case was that the suit land being watan property, which is an admitted fact, the sale deed is void by virtue of section 5 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act.(2) Defendant No. 1 alone contested this suit. His case was that there was legal necessity for the sale and he being a stranger to the watan section 5 of the Bombay Hereditary offices Act had n...
Tag this Judgment!Appa Saheb Vs. Gurubasawwa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant79; AIR1960Mys79; ILR1959KAR287
(1) The second appeal raises an important question of law. The plaintiff who is respondent now, filed the suit against defendant 1 who is her adopted son, and against defendant 2 who is the wife of defendant 1, claiming that she is entitled to one half share in the properties originally belonging to her husband. There were several contentions raised for defendant 1 but the only one that now survives for consideration is that the plaintiff was leading an unchaste life prior to her husband's death and also of the time of her husband's death and that, therefore she is disqualified from inheriting her husband's properties.It is admitted that the plaintiff's husband Basappa died in 1944 and that thereafter on 3-8-1945 she adopted defendant 1. The trial court came to the conclusion that she was unchaste. Still it decreed the plaintiff's suit for partition and possession. In appeal, the decree was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. It is against this decision that defendant 1 has come up...
Tag this Judgment!Moola Gowramma Vs. K. Venkataswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant53; AIR1960Mys53
Hegde, J.(1) This appeal arises from the decree passed in Original Suit No. 118 of 1950 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bellary. The defendant in that suit is the appellant in this appeal and the plaintiff is the respondent.(1a) The plaintiff sued in a representative capacity and prayed that an account be taken of the moveable and immovable properties of late Moola Venkata Rangiah and the same may be administered under the decree of the court. A preliminary decree in terms prayed for has been granted. Aggrieved by this decision, the defendant has to come up in appeal.(2) The plaintiff claims to be a creditor of the deceased Moola Venkata Rangian, the husband of the defendant. Late Moola Venkata Rangiah died intestate on 16-6-1948. According to the plaintiff he had executed Exhibit A-19 promissory note for a sum of Rs. 44,000/- in his favour for valid consideration. During his lifetime he had made some payments towards the amount due under Exhibit A-19 and endorsed the same there...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›