Karnataka Court July 1959 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Madanvali Vs. Balu Padmanna Tamadaddi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant299; AIR1960Mys299; ILR1959KAR495
Hegde, J.(1) The appellant (plaintiff) sued the respondent (defendant) her husband to recover a sum of Rs. 4,320/- as arrears of 6 years' past maintenance. She also prayed for a decree for future maintenance, at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month. They were married about 18 years prior to the suit. For some time they lived cordially. The appellant has no issued. In about 1942-43, the respondent took a second wife. It is now admitted that even after the second marriage, the appellant lived with her husband for about two years. Ever since then she has been living separately with her parents. According to the appellant, she was treated cruelly by her husband; she was assaulted by him a number of times; and hence it was not possible for her to live with him. She further pleads that he deserted her.On the basis of these allegations, she claimed separate maintenance as mentioned above. She also contends that she is entitled to the separate maintenance claimed in view of section 2(4) of the Hindu...
Balappa Tippanna Vs. Asangappa Mallappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Kant234; AIR1960Mys234; ILR1959KAR612
(1) The suit out of which this appeal arises was for possession of the suit property. The plaintiff claimed under a gift from one Maritammappa. Defendant No. 2 who alone contested this suit is the brother's wife of the said Maritammappa and who is in possession of the suit property. In her written statement she inter alia stated as follows :'It is true that the suit land belonged to one Maritammappa Fakirappa Chilapur. The said person has not written and registered the gift deed on Shaka 1867 Parthivanam Samvatsara Aswin Bahul 14. And he never gave the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. All these are denied by the defendant.'The further defence raised by the said defendant was that the document was obtained from the said Maritammappa by one Mudiawa, who was in his keeping, by using undue influence. The two main issues in the case were : (1) Does the plaintiff prove that Maritammappa has gifted suit property to plaintiff as alleged? And (2) Do defendants prove that the gift d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›