Karnataka Court April 1960 Judgments
Shankaragouda Vs. Sirur Veerabhadrappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-27-1960
Reported in: AIR1963Mys81; ILR1960KAR766
M. Sadasivayya, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order dated 14-11-1959 by the Election Tribunal, Raichur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in Election Petition No. 258 of 1957 on its file. Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa as a candidate on behalf of the Lok Sevak Sangha and Shankaragouda Basan Gouda as a candidate on behalf of the Congress Party, contested for a seat in the Mysore Legislative Assembly from the Yelburga Constituency of Raichur District, Mysore State, in the last general election of 1957. Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa having polled only 14,500 votes, Shankargouda Basan Gouda was declared duly elected, he having polled 20,541 votes.Thereupon, Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa filed an election petition under Section 80 of the Act alleging that because of the various corrupt practices committed by the respondent, his agent and persons interested in the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhima Rama Jadhav Vs. Abdul Rashid
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant175; AIR1961Mys175; ILR1960KAR652
1. The point for decision is whether the plaintiff-appellant is estopped, in view of the proceedings in Civil Suit No. 1017 of 1945 on the file of the learned Civil Judge, First Class, Bijipur, from contending that the sale deed executed by him in favour of the defendant on 11-7-1941 (Ex. 59) is invalid and he is entitled to possession of the suit property. Other contentions raised in the pleadings have been decided by the Courts below and not reopened in this Court.2. The antecedent facts, relevant for the purpose of this appeal, as determined by the Courts below fire as follows : Survey No. 182 of Dyaberi village measuring 27 acres and 9 guntas and assessed at Rs. 12/- belonged to the plaintiff's uncle piraji; the suit property i.e. S. No. 188/2 measuring 9 acres and 3 guntas is a portion of that Survey Number, this was sold by piraji to the plaintiff for Rs. 700/-as per Exhibit 60 dated 12-9-1939; the entire S. No. 188 was subject to an earlier mortgage in favour of one Jamunabai Vi...
Tag this Judgment!Champalal Vs. Y. Nabi Khan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Kant289; AIR1960Mys289
(1) This Appeal arises out of the proceedings instituted for removing the obstruction to the delivery of possession of a house situated in Bangalore City. An application was filed under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present appellant in the capacity of a purchaser of the said property in Court sale. Respondent No. 1 obstructed the delivery proceedings on the ground that he had purchased the said property from the original owner thereof and had also discharged the prior usufructuary mortgage of the said property in favour of one Adiramaiah Setty.He also got possession of the said property and was subrogated to his rights. Respondents 2 and 3 are the tenants of the said property under the first respondent. The respondents' contentions were upheld by the trial Court. In appeal by the present appellant, the learned Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, while dismissing the appeal ordered that he is entitled to resist the delivery proceedings till the amou...
Tag this Judgment!B. Gangaiah Vs. D.P. Gangadharan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant178; AIR1961Mys178
1. The plaintiff-respondent in Original Suit No. 494 of 1951-52 in the Court of the First Munsiff at Bangalore, sued the appellant-defendant, in a sum of Rs. 1000/- as damages for (1) slandering his title to the property offered as security for the loan to be granted by the State Government as per their order No. A.F. 6850/2A.H. 66-30-2 dated 13-11-1950; (2) for defaming him; and (3) for inducing the Government to cancel the loan which had been sanctioned and thereby interfering with the implementation of the contract. The trial Court decreed the suit claim as prayed for holding that the defendant had slandered the title of the plaintiff to the property offered as security for the loan proposed to be advanced by the Government and that he (defendant) induced the Government to cancel the loan which had been sanctioned. The first appellate Court while it agreed with the finding of the trial Court in all respects thought that the ends of justice will be met if a consolidated sum of Rs. 50...
Tag this Judgment!Kasipathi Vs. E. Subba Rao Pawer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant62; AIR1961Mys62
1. Two questions of law have been, urged by Sri Vedant Iyengar, the learned Counsel for the appellant, in support of his appeal. Firstly he contended that on the proved facts of the case the Courts below were wrong in opining that the respondent (first defendant) is a bona fide purchaser of (be suit property and that he is entitled to any benefit under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, Secondly he urged that under any circumstances the plaintiff should have been given the option of either paying the value of the improvements effected by the respondent or to sell the suit property to him; The Courts below were not right in directing the respondent to purchase the right of the plaintiff. 2-3. As found by the Courts below, the plain-riff appellant is the prior purchaser of the suit property and thus he had acquired a valid little to the suit property. The sale in Favour of the predecessor-in-title of the respondent under Exhibit IV being of a later date, the same cannot affect t...
Tag this Judgment!Nagar Mohan Rao and anr. Vs. the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant203; AIR1961Mys203; ILR1960KAR534
Das Gupta, C.J.1. The petitioners before us are challenging in this petition the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, dated 12-2-1960 confiscating their Vauxhai car under section 168 of the Sea Customs Act read with Section 23-A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and also imposing a penalty of Rs. 1000/- on each of the petitioners under Section 167(8) at the Sea Customs Act. The matter arises in this, way:--2. The petitioners, who are two in number, are partners of a firm known as M/s. Nagar Srinivasa Rao. The said firm carries on business at Man-galore. They were originally called upon by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore to show cause, why a penalty under Section 167 (8) should not be imposed upon them for having illegally imported. 41 belts, weighing 20,500 tolas of gold into India in a vessel known as Osama.They were served with another show-cause notice asking them to show cause as to why their two cars, being Studehakar and Vauxhai, should not be conf...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›