Karnataka Court December 1960 Judgments
Bagali Mommu Saheb and ors. Vs. Doddi Laxmi Bai and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant196; AIR1961Mys196
1. Plaintiff is the landlord and defendant 2 is her tenant. Defendant 2 had to pay to the plaintiff thirteen tons of sugar cane as rent. A lease deed was executed recording the lease between the parties and that lease deed was deposited by defendant 2 with defendant 3 for the purpose of enabling him to draw advances from defendant 3 for the expenses of cultivation. Defendant 2 had supplied the sugar cane grown by him on the land to defendant 3 which is a Joint Stock Company manufacturing sugar, A sum of Rs. 654-7-0 was the price payable fay defendant 3 to defendant 2 in respect of the sugar cane supplied. 2. In 1953, defendant 2 had to deliver to the plaintiff fourteen tons of sugar cane as the current year's rent and arrears of rent for the preceding year. On March 4, 1953, defendant 2 addressed a letter to defendant 3 requesting it to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 500-2-9 out of the money which was payable by defendant 3 to defendant 2. That letter was acknowledged by the Company...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Shetty and ors. Vs. Xavier Misquith and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-19-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant242; AIR1961Mys242
1. The question arising in the suit was whether the plaintiffs' land Survey No. 27/6A was receiving water from the watercourse, shown by the Commissioner in Exhibit A-11 as MIMI, on the contiguous land of the defendants, and whether the plaintiffs had acquired a right to the supply of water in that way from the reservoir, denoted by the letter P, in that exhibit.2. Although it was disputed that the plaintiffs had the mulgeni rights in the land Survey No. 27/6A, the Court of first instance negatived the contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs were not the owners of that right But, on the question whether the plaintiffs had the right to take water to their land through the channel M1M1, the finding of the Court of first instance, which was against the plaintiffs, was reversed by the lower appellate Court.3. The lower appellate Court, in coming to that conclusion, gave many reasons. It first believed the oral testimony given by P. Ws. 3 and 4 which, according to the lower appella...
Tag this Judgment!B. Iddinabba Abbu and anr. Vs. Abdulkadri Cheria Bava
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant146; AIR1961Mys146
S.R. Das Gupta, C. J. 1. The appellants before us were the plaintiffs in the suit. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by them to recover monies against the defendant on the allegation that they were sureties for the said defendant in respect of a hundi executed by the plaintiffs and the defendant in favour of a bank.2. On 24-4-50 a liundi was executed by the plainfiffs, the defendant and one Yusuf for a sum of Rs. 2500/- in favour of Vijaya Bank. On 25-8-1950, the said hundi was renewed. On 24-10-50 there was a further renewal of the said hundi. A suit was thereafter filed by the bolder of the said hundi against the plaintiffs and the defendant. The said suit was decreed against the plaintiffs and the defendantThe Bank which was the decree-holder set off a sum of Rs. 504-14-0 which was deposited by the defendant in the said Bank and obtained the decree for the balance amount due on the hundi. This decree was put into execution and was paid off by the plaintiffs and...
Tag this Judgment!Thakunadu Narayndas Darbar Vs. Khalilulla Saheb Abasheb Janvekar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Kant14; AIR1962Mys14
(1) In this second appeal, the question which arises for decision is whether the plaintiff, who is the respondent, was rightly awarded mense profits for a period of thirteen years preceding of the propertied belonging to him. (2) The brief history of this case is as here under : One Khupsa and his brother Abasaheb were the owners of properties of which they were tenant- in - common. They were members of a Mohammandan family. In O.S. 73/24 in the court of the civil judge, Bijapur, Abasaheb's share in the property was sold in execution of a decree and purchased by the defendant. In O.S. 299/28 in that Court, one Jainama who was another co sharer brought a suit for partion of her share of the property against the defendant who had purchased Abasaheb's share in the property. On July 29, 1930, a decree was made in favour of Jainama for partition and possession of her 7/38 share. Jainama died during the pendency of the further proceedings and in the year 1936 the plaintiff, who is the son of...
Tag this Judgment!Malleshappa Hanamappa Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-1960
Reported in: ILR1961KAR84; (1961)ILLJ479Kant
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J. 1. The question, which has been referred to us for decision, shortly stated, arises as follows. 2. The petitioner was directly recruited as an upper division clerk. His first appointment was as junior assistant, Political Department. On 18 September 1943 he was transferred on deputation of the Rationing Department, which was a temporary department. In that department he rose up to the position of a Rationing Officer and was drawing a sum of Rs. 460. On 1 March, 1954 the Rationing Department which, as I said, was a temporary department, ceased to exist and the petitioner was thereupon reverted to his parent department. Instead of being reposted to the Political Department he was first posted to the Labour Department and then to the Public Works Department. The pay which was fixed on such reversion was Rs. 120. The petitioner's case is that when he went on deputation on 18 September, 1943 he was confirmed in the post of junior assistant on a pay of Rs. 120 in the gra...
Tag this Judgment!Muniappa Vs. C.A. Ramasetty and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant166; AIR1961Mys166; ILR1961KAR231
1. The appellant in this appeal was defendant 1 in the court of first instance. He was the lessor of certain premises which were taken on lease by defendant 2, in connection with which a sum of Rs. 1,200/- had been paid by defendant 2 to defendant 1, as advance, under a receipt Exhibit A. On August 26, 1949, accounts were settled between the defendants and the receipt Exhibit C was executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 2, acknowledging receipt from defendant 2 of the sum of Rs. 3,400/-. The receipt Exhibit A, however, was left in the custody of defendant 2.2. The plaintiff, claiming to be a transferee of the right to recover the sum of Rs. 1,200/- which had been advanced by defendant 2 to defendant 1, brought the suit out of which this second appeal arises, for the recovery of that amount from both the defendants.3. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit against defendant 1 but gave the plaintiff the decree which he wanted, against defendant 2.4. Although the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›