Karnataka Court October 1960 Judgments
G. Moogappa Vs. the State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant44; AIR1961Mys44; 1961CriLJ285
Hombe Gowda, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Special Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, In Special Criminal Case No. 1 of 1958 convicting the appellant. G. Moogappa of offences under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947) and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- on each of the counts and in default of the payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month with a direction that the substantive sentences in respect of the two founts should run concurrently.2. The appellant and one Nanjiah, a peon attached to the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Civil Station, were both tried on a charge that they while being public servants directly accepted from Dr. Mrs. K. Tarabai illegal gratification as a motive or reward for doing an official act, namely, for returning a gift-deed which she had presented for registration on 12th of August, 1957 and h...
Tag this Judgment!Tippayya Kuppayya Vaidya Vs. Rama Narayana Hegde and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant131; AIR1961Mys131; ILR1960KAR1270
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J. 1. This petition raises a very important question relating to the Bombay Tenancy Act, The question broadly put is whether relief against forfeiture can be given under the said Act in cases where there are more than two defaults.2. A large number of cases which are on the list would depend for their decision on a decision of this question. For the sake of convenience we permitted all the learned advocates who appear for the landlords in those cases as also all the learned advocates who appear for the tenants in those cases to argue this question before us. This question, therefore, was argued before us from all possible points of view and we had the fullest assistance from the learned advocates who appeared and argued their respective contentions before us.3. The facts which led up to the filing of the present petition may be shortly stated as follows: The petitioner was the tenant of the suit land. Respondents 2 and 3 are the landlords and they filed an application...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Charles De Cournalay and anr. Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ536
ORDERN. Sreenivasa Rau, J.1. This revision petition arises from proceedings instituted by the police against the present petitioners under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. before the Assistant Commissioner and Ex-Ofticio First Class Magistrate, Tarikere. On receipt of the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tarikere, and after taking the sworn statement of the Police Sub-Inspector, the learned Magistrate made an order under Section 112, Cr.P.C. and notified the petitioners to show cause why each of them should not be called upon to enter into a bond in a sum of Rs. 10,000 and to furnish one surety in a like sum for keeping the peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. He also directed that each of them should furnish an interim bond in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety for a like sum pending conclusion of the enquiry. This direction is obviously under Section 117(3) of the Code.2. The learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the initiation of the proceedings as unwa...
Tag this Judgment!Bapuram Vedavyasa Rao Vs. Bapuram Narayan Rao and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Kant18; AIR1962Mys18
Hegde, J.(1) The first defendant in Original Suit Number 89/1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bellary, is the appellant in this Court. The plaintiff and the second defendant are the sons of the first defendant. The plaintiff is said to be a person of unsound mind and hence, the suit was instituted by his wife as his next friend.(2) In the Court below, the suit was resisted mainly on two grounds: They are : (1) the plaintiff is not a person of unsound mind and as such the suit as instituted is not maintainable and (2) that all the properties of the first defendant and hence, the plaintiff had no right to claim any share in them. The Court below rejected both these contention and decreed the suit in respect of all items of property claimed excepting item No. 8. As regards costs, it directed that the same shall come out of the estate. The first defendant has appealed against that decision while the plaintiff has come up with a Memorandum of Cross-Objections disputing the correct...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumakka and ors. Vs. Narasamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Kant3; AIR1962Mys3
(1) The appellants are the legal representatives of defendant 4. The fact leading to this appeal may shortly be stated as follows:The properties in dispute belonged originally to one Narasimhappa, the father of the present plaintiff. Defendant 1 is the sister of the plaintiff's father; defendant 2 is the daughter of another sister of the plaintiff's father. Defendant 3 is the mortgagee from defendants 1 and 2, and defendant 4 claims to be the purchaser of the equity of redemption from defendants 1 and 2. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff in the Court of the Munsiff at Madhugiri, being original suit No. 98 of 1950-51. It is the case of the plaintiff that her father Narasimhappa died in the year 1951, that she was married during his life time when she was a minor, that defendants 1 and 2 who were elders were brought to her father's house before his death, that they were living with him and helping him in getting the family lands cultivated, that after her father's dea...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: P. Abdul Sattar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant57; AIR1961Mys57; 1961CriLJ291
Narayana Pai, J.1. On 16-8-1957, there were under the aegis of the Government country-wide celebrations of the centenary of a historic event which happened in 1857, formerly called the Sepoy Mutiny, now thought of as India's first war of Independence against foreign, domination.2. In the municipal town of Hospet in Bellary District, the celebrations were organised by a committee formed for the purpose under the chairmanship of the local Tahsildar, A. M. Kotriah P. W. 9. Among the items in the programme of celebrations was a procession of Mahatma Gandhi's photo and Indian National Flag mounted on a double-bullock cart, scheduled to start from the Municipal Office, go round the town along a specified route and to terminate in a public meeting under the presidency of Murari Venkataswamy P. W. 3, one of the leading citizens of the place.Though it was originally proposed to start at 2.30 p. m., it had to be postponed owing to heavy rains. Actually, it started at about 5.30 p. m. Along the r...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Yeshwant Monu Dodamani and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-1960
Reported in: 1962CriLJ832
A. Narayana Pai, J.1. The appellants were accused 1 to 3 in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1958 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Dharwar Accused 4 to 10 therein were acquitted.2. These accused were tried under a charge for offences falling under two principal heads : (1) Disobedience of Rule 66 framed under Section 41 of the Indian Forests Act (2) offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448, 353, 395 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The bare facts of the case are that on the forenoon of the 9th of October 1957 the first three accused and one Shamraj since deceased, were seen driving four carts containing red earth in front of the forest Naka at Banadur in Dharwar District. The Forest Guards taking the view that the red earth that was being conveyed was a forest produce, thought that the conveyance of the red earth required the persona to take what are called transit passes under the relevant rules. On being questioned by the guards, accused 1 to 3 replied that they had no passes, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Raviappa Vs. Nilakanta Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Kant53; AIR1962Mys53
Hedge, J.(1) These appeals are companion appeals. They can be beat dealt with in one judgment. Rs.. A. No. (B) 56/56 arises out of Special Civil Suit No. 38 of 1949 on the file of the learned civil judge (Senior Division)at Bijapur. B.A. No. (B) 57/58 arises out of the decision in special Civil suit No. 5 of 1949 on the file of the same Judge. They had been tried together and disposed of in one judgment by the Court below.(2) The first plaintiff is S. C. S.. No 5/49 and the plaintiff in S.C. S. No. 38/49 claim to have been adopted to the family of the Nadgoudas of Baldion- a rich family of Watandars. In the course of this judgment 1 shall refer to the parties its arrayed in SCS No. 5/49. The first plaintiff in that suit (2nd plaintiff has died prodding trial) is the appellant in R.A. No. The fourth defendant in that suit (who is the plaintiff in SCS No. 38/49) is the appellant in R.A. No. (B) 56/56. Hereinafter reference to the 'plaintiff' means the first plaintiff in SCS Nos. 5/49. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Naganath and ors. Vs. Khandaba Balaba Misal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant101; AIR1961Mys101
ORDER1. This is a revision petition against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gadag, reconsidering a previous order and allowing the plaintiff to produce certain, documents on an application made by the plaintiff under Order 13 Rule 2 and Section 151, C. P. C. The defendant, who is a minor represented by his guardian-ad-litem, is the Petitioner and challenges the order as one made without jurisdiction on the ground that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to review a previous order, particularly when it had been made By his predecessor-in-office.2. The learned Advocate relies upon the decisions reported in Sri Krishen v. Jamna Narain, AIR 1938 Oudh 103 and Mir Haji Ghulam v. Khan-chand Gopaldas, AIR 1939 Sind 137. In the former case a preliminary decree passed on a compromise had made no provision for payment of any mesne profits by one party to the other. Subsequently the parlies applied for mesne profits and as they could not come to an agreement on the point, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ravjappa Vs. Nilakanta Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-1960
Reported in: 1962CriLJ441
K.S. Hegde, J.1. These appeals are companion appeals. They can be best dealt with in one judgment. R.A. No. (B) 56/56 arises out of Special Civil Suit No. 38 of 1949 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Bijapur. R.A. No. (B) 57/56 arises out of the decision to Special Civil Suit No. 5 of 1949 on the file of the same Judge. They had been tried together and disposed of in one judgment by the Court below.2. The first plaintiff in S.C.S. No. 5/49 and the plaintiff in S.C.S. No. 38/49 claim to have been adopted to the family of the Nadgoudas of Baldinni a rich family of Watandars. In the course of this judgment I shall refer to the parties as arrayed in S.C.S. No. 5/49. The first plaintiff in that suit (2nd plaintiff has died pending trial) is the appellant in R.A. No. (B) 57/56. The fourth defendant in that suit (who is the plaintiff in S.C.S. No. 38/49) is the appellant in R.A. No. (B) 56/56. Hereinafter reference to the 'plaintiff' means the first plaintiff in S.C....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »