Karnataka Court February 1960 Judgments
Somasekharappa Vs. Basappa Channabasappa Shettar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant141; AIR1961Mys141; ILR1960KAR392
S.R. Das Gupta, C. J. 1. This appeal raises an important question of Hindu Law; that question being whether or not a son adopted by a widow of a deceased coparcener can claim the joint family property in the hands of a transferee from the heir of the last surviving coparcener -- even though the transfer look place before the adoption.2. One Irappa and his son Puttappa were the joint owners of the property in question, they being members of a Hindu joint-family. Puttappa died before Irappa leaving a widow Channava who is defendant No. 3 in this case. Thereafter Irappa died in the year 1915. On the death of Irappa his collateral one Channappa became the owner of the suit property as the heir of Irappa. The said Channappa transferred the said property to the 1st Respondent on 7th November 1932. In the year 1935 the widow of Puttappa, i.e. Channava, adopted the present Appellant Somasekharappa,This suit is instituted by the transferee from Channappa. His case is that the adopted son, who i...
Tag this Judgment!Kalgouda Chikagouda Patil Vs. Annagonda Tatya Chougula
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Kant65; AIR1962Mys65
Kalagate, J.(1) This appeal arises out of a suit filed byte plaintiff to recover form these defendant the suit properties as full owner or, in these alternative, to recover his one half share therein there in by partition. The relation of the parties will appear form the pedigree table given at a page 2 of the print book, which is as follows:--DHARAMAGOUDA________________________________________| | |Malgounda Annappa Sugumappa| Jakagouda Malgounda Kalagounda= Gangabai (Propostitus)| Kalagounda (plaintiff ) Annagounda (Defendant )The dispute in appeal relates to properties left by the deceased Kalagounda Sugunappa who died on 14th January 1946, his wife having predeceased him. The suit properties are patilki watan lands. The plaintiff alleges that he is the heir to the deceased Kalagounda and that the defendant claiming to be adopted son of Malagounda recovered possession of the suit properties in the year 1949 from the Revenue Officer.The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant is no...
Tag this Judgment!Shivappa Gurlingappa Savalgi Vs. Collector of C. Ex., Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1960
Reported in: 2000(123)ELT67(Kar)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a resident of Jamkhandi town who engages himself in the purchase and sale of groundnuts and groundnut oil. By a notice issued to him on August 4, 1957, the Collectorate of Central Excise called upon him to pay excise duty in the sum of Rs. 10,356.02 nP. which according to the Excise authorities represented the excise duty payable by the petitioner for the years 1956-57 and 1957-58. On August 6, 1957, evidently after the demand was made of the petitioner for the payment of the excise duty, he applied for permission to pay the excise duty in six monthly instalments. He addressed a letter to the Range Officer of the Central Excise, Jamkhandi, in which he prayed for permission to do so. In that letter, he informed the Range Officer that he had applied on that date for the grant of a licence to him which obviously was a licence which he had to obtain for the manufacture of goods liable to Central Duty of Excise. He also stated in that letter that he was having tran...
Tag this Judgment!Kalappa Shiddappa Uppar and ors. Vs. Bhima Govind Uppar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant160; AIR1961Mys160; ILR1960KAR382
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J. 1. The only point which has to be considered in this appeal is whether or not the lower appellate Court was wrong in admitting in evidence statements contained in two Exhibits, being Ex. 58 and 59 in the suit.2. The case of the plaintiffs in the suit was that they were the owners of the suit plot marked A B C D E F and situated in Uppar Lane, Hukkeri, Belgium District. The defendants deny the title of the plaintiffs. In support of their case the plaintiffs produced the said Exhibits, being Exhibit 58 and Exhibit 59. Ex. 58 is dated 12-1-40 and Ex. 59 is dated 13-4-46. Ex. 58 is a sale-deed executed by one Appiah and his minor sons in favour of the plaintiffs.The subject matter of the said sale deed was a plot of land situated to south of the land in question in this suit. In that document it was recited that the northern boundary of the said land was a plot owned by the plaintiffs. Ex. 59 was a rent note executed by one Falcru in favour of plaintiff No. 1. In this ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Rudraradhya Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant247; AIR1961Mys247
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. Respondents 3 and 4 who were Excise Assistant Inspectors in the service of the new State of Mysore were promoted as Excise Inspectors in December, 1958. The petitioner who is an Excise Assistant Inspector of that State seeks their removal by quo-warrantor from their posts and his own appointment by mandamus to one of them. He applies for a further direction that, after his appointment in that way, he should be placed, in the list of seniority, above respondent 5, who, although appointed as Excise Inspector in December, 1957, is, according to him, is junior in the service of the State.2. The dates on which these four persons entered the service of the former State of Mysore and those on which they were promoted as Excise Assistant Inspectors arc set out in the following tabular statement:--NameRank inthe provisional Inter-State Seniority list.Date of employment. Date ofpromotion as Excise Assistant InspectorRudraradhya(Petitioner)1213-7-194514-9-1949Chikkarangiah(Res...
Tag this Judgment!Fakirappa Ningappa Chikkabagewadi Vs. the State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Kant208; AIR1960Mys208; 1960CriLJ1113; ILR1960KAR484
ORDER(1) This is a revision petition submitted by the petitioner from Jail. It is directed against the order of the first Addl. District Judge, Dharwar, in Cr. A. No. 124/1958. The petitioner is not represented in this Court. Hence I requested Sri Muralidhara Rao, Advocate, to assist me on behalf of the petitioner. He was good enough to examine the facts of the case carefully and present the same. In an able argument he has placed before me the relevant facts as well as the law bearing on the points arising in the case.(2) The petitioner was convicted under S. 182 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the information given by him to the Collector, Dharwar, as per Ex. 14 were known to him to be false or at any rate he believed them to be false and the same was given intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause the Collector to use his lawful powers to the injury or annoyance of Gangiah Chikmath who was at one time the chairman of the Sarvodaya ...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashiv Basappa Madabavi Vs. Annappa Shidlingappa Poojari
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Kant273; AIR1960Mys273; ILR1960KAR478
(1) It is necessary to state a few facts before proceeding to consider the question of law urged in this case.(2) The appellant as plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 288 of 1941 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Jamkhandi, which was a Native State at that time; in that suit he obtained an ex parte decree; from the material on record it is not possible to find out the date on which the ex parte decree was passed; nut it is seen that some time in the year 1945, the defendant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 1945 to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him; when that application was pending the plaintiff levied execution of his decree in C. S. 288/41: therein he obtained possession of the suit property on 5-1-1946; possession of the suit house was obtained on 1-3-1946; meanwhile Misc. Application No. 1/45 was allowed on 14-7-1947 and the suit C. S. No. 288/41 was posted for trial, on 12-3-1948 Jamkhandi State merged in the Province of Bombay; Hulabali Village in which t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›