Karnataka Court January 1960 Judgments
imambu Vs. Hussenbi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Mys203; 1960CriLJ1112; ILR1960KAR471
ORDER(1) This revision petition arises from the decision of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gadag, in Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 1957 on his file, which was a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After examining the evidence before him, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, came to the conclusion that Party No. 1 was in possession of the lands in dispute. Consequently he passed the necessary order under Section 145(6) Cr.. P. C. As against that order, the party No. II has come up in revision to this court.(2) The only point argued before this Court is that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate was not competent to enquire into the dispute as the very dispute was the subject matter of the suit in I. C. Suit No. 49 of 1957 on the file of the Civil Judge Gadag, which was pending trial at the time the order under revision was passed. This contention does not appear to have been taken either before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate or before the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Thimmappa Vs. B. Subba Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Kant249; AIR1960Mys249
(1) The suit out of which this Second Appeal arises has been filed by plaintiffs for partition and possession of their three-fourth thereof from the defendants.(2) The facts which are necessary to state for the purpose of this appeal are as follows :The suit property is Survey No. 45/3, measuring 5 acres and 9 guntas, assessed at Rs. 6-8-0. This property originally belonged to one Venkatappa who had mortgaged the same with possession to one Lakshminaranappa. The mortgagee brought a suit, being O. S. No. 449 of 39-40 to recover the mortgage amount. The suit was decreed. It appears that thereafter this decree-holder Lakshminaranappa. Defendant No. 1 filed O. S. No. 225 of 1942-43 for partition and possession of his one-fourth share in the properties Lakshminaranappa and one of the properties in which defendant No. 1 claimed a share was the mortgage decree which was described as item No. 12. Ultimately, the suit was compromised whereby plaintiffs 1 and 2 were held to be entitled to three-...
Tag this Judgment!Yallappa Golappa Kamoji Vs. Magundappa Andanappa Hullur and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Kant215; AIR1960Mys215; ILR1960KAR289
ORDER(1)In this revision petition the true scope of S. 31(1) of the Court-fees Act, 1870, as amended by Act XII of 1954, comes up for consideration.(2) The said section reads as follows :'Where any suit in a Court is settled by agreement of parties before issues have been settled or any evidence recorded, half the amount of fee paid by the plaintiff on the plaint shall be paid to him by the Court.......'(3) This revision petition arises out of Long Cause Suit No. 275/1954 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Dn. Gadag. In the suit, the defendants filed their written statement and issues were struck in due course. Some time after the issues were framed, the suit was settled out of Court. The plaintiff-petitioner applied to the Court below under S. 31(1) to refund half the court-fee paid by him in the suit. The court below has rejected his application holding that as the suit had been compromised after the issues were settled, the plaintiff is not entitled to the refund claimed.(4) Sri M...
Tag this Judgment!A.S.S. Karanth Vs. the Assistant, Commercial Tax Officer, Puttur, Sout ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Kant275; AIR1960Mys275
Narayana Pai, J.(1) The petitioner, who is an assessee under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, impugns in this writ petition the legality of tax imposed in respect of transactions covered by sales effected by him outside the District of South Kanara but within the areas of the old Mysore State, both of which were since integrated into the new Mysore State. This argument is pressed only in respect of the period 1-4-1957 to 30-9-1957 till which date different statutes levying sales tax were in force in different areas of the new Mysore State. Prior to the reorganisation of the States, territories of the old Mysore States as it then was and such turnover of the petitioner had been exempted or excluded from taxation under the Madras Act as constituting turnover in respect of transactions in the course of inter-State trade.It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the position was not different even after the reorganisation of States until on 1-10-1957 the Mysore Sales Tax Act was passe...
Tag this Judgment!Ullal Venkatraya Kini Vs. Louis Souza
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Kant209; AIR1960Mys209; ILR1960KAR341
ORDER(1) In this revision petition the true scope of some of the provisions in the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955(which shall be hereinafter called the 'Act') comes up for consideration.(2) The petitioner is the plaintiff in Small Cause Suit No. 72/1958 on the file of the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge of South Karana, Mangalore. He sued the defendant who is his tenant, for a sum of Rs. 790.52 NP, as being the arrears of rent for the years 1956, 1957 and 1958, on the basis of a challenged lease deed alleged to have been executed by the defendant on 26-9-1950. The defendant denied the genuineness of the lease deed produced. He alleged that the plaintiff had taken his thumb impression on a blank paper and the same must have been used to get up the lease deed in question. He further pleaded that the claim made in the present suit is barred by the principle of res judicata, in view of the decision given by the Special Assistant Commissioner in O. P. No. 386/58...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›