Karnataka Court June 1960 Judgments
Laxman Minaji Chaugule Vs. Narayan Appayya Chaugule
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant172; AIR1961Mys172; ILR1960KAR883
1. This is an execution appeal in which the appellant is the decree-holder. On March 18, 1947, in a partition suit brought by the decree-holder, a compromise decree was made at the request of the parties. On April 26, 1947, that decree was signed.2. The decree-holder who had to produce non-judicial stamped paper on which the partition decree should have been engrossed, produced that stamped paper only on July 22, 1954. Thereafter the engrossment of the decree on such non-judicial stamped paper was made on July 23, 1954. The decree-holder presented the application for the execution of that decree on September 6, 1954.3. The judgment-debtor objected to the execution of the decree on the ground that it wasbarred by limitation since the application had notbeen presented within three years from the dateof the decree which was made on March 18, 1947,and which was signed on April 26, 1947. Theexecuting Court repelled that contention and directed execution to proceed. From that order thejudgme...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshminarayan Upadya Vs. Narasimha Upadhya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant171; AIR1961Mys171; ILR1960KAR874
1. This appeal is presented by alandlord from a decree made by the District Judgeof South Kanara, in appeal, by which ho modifiedthe decree made by the District Munsiff, in hisfavour. 2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 41-13-0, which consisted of the arrears of rent, the enhanced assessment and the interest thereon due from his tenant defendant 1. It is admitted that there was a mulgeni lease granted to defendant 1 by defendant 2 who was the yajaman of the family to which the land belonged, under exhibit A-1 on July 2, 1928.3. On December 14, 1934, under Exhibit B-1, which was an award made between the members of the family of defendant 2 there was a partition between defendant 2 and his brother under which the land which was the subject-matter of the mul-geni lease was divided into two equal shares. Defendant 2 got one of those shares and his brother Subbarayappa got the other. Plaintiff purchased Subbarayappa's share ...
Tag this Judgment!Mallappa Vs. Mallava
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Kant292; AIR1960Mys292; ILR1960KAR867
Iqbal Husain, J.(1) An interesting point of law is raised regarding jurisdiction. Briefly stated the facts leading up to this present appeal are as follows: Mallappa, the present appellant filed a petition in the Courts of the District Judge, Dharwar under Ss. 11 and 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, Act 25 of 1955 against his wife Mallavva, the respondent in the present case. He alleged among other things that he was kidnapped and taken away from his home and by force and framed he was married to Mallava. That contention was met by Mallava who denied any such force or fraud on her part or on the part of her relations for bringing about the marriage.But on the other hand, she alleged that because the appellant fell in love with her, the marriage was celebrated thereby putting an end to the feuds and quarrels that existed between the respective families. In fact the hatchet was buried by this relationship. The petitioner-appellant prayed for declaring the marriage null and void. The case was tr...
Tag this Judgment!Rau Parsu Mardikhot Vs. Kallappa Bahu Shetti
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Kant277; AIR1960Mys277; ILR1960KAR863
(1) This is an execution appeal in which the only question involved is one of limitation. The appellant in this appeal was a person against whom a money decree had been made in a suit brought by the respondent. An execution application for the recovery of that amount was application for the recovery of that amount was presented by the respondent-decree-holder on July 18, 1953. But, in that application, the decree holder prayed for the execution of the decree against the appellant's son who was described as judgment-debtor. The decree-holder appears to have been under the impression that the appellant was dead and that the execution had, therefore, to be taken against his son.(2) It appears to have been subsequently discovered by the decree-holder that the appellant was really alive and that he had committed a mistake in asking for execution to proceed against his son. He, therefore, made an application on June 16, 1954, for permission to amend his execution application, by substituting...
Tag this Judgment!Ananthamathi and ors. Vs. Thochappa Shetty and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Kant304; AIR1960Mys304; ILR1960KAR844
(1) In the District of south Kanara, an Aliyasanthana family consisted of defendant 3, her two daughters and her grandchildren. One of her daughters was dead at the material point of time with which we are concerned. Plaintiff 1 was the elder daughter. Plaintiffs 5 to 10 are the children of plaintiff 1. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased daughter. Defendant 3 had also a son, defendant 2.(2) Defendant 3 admittedly was the yejamanti of this Aliyasanthana family. On 10-10-1942, under a sale dead Exhibit A4, she sold the property described in scheduled B to the plaint in the suit out of which this second appeal arises, to one Nagara Ramanath Shenoy, for a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. On 6-11-1944, under Exhibit A5, Ramanath Shenoy sold those properties in his turn to defendant 2, the son of defendant 3 for a sum of Rs. 3,000/-.He also appears to have sold along with the B schedule properties, the property described in schedule A to the plaintiff with which we are not concerned in th...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Vinayak Kudtarkar Vs. the Collector, Central Excise, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mys263; 1961CriLJ791; ILR1960KAR683
Somnath Iyer J.1. This is an application in which the petitioner challenges an order made by the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Bombay, imposing on him a penalty under the provisions of item (8) of Section 167 of the Sea Customs Act (Central Act VIII of 1878), read with Section 7(1) (c) of the Land Customs Act (Central Act XIX of 1924).2. On April 27, 19,54, twenty-two gold bangles were seised from the possession of one Rosalin Jacki Cardos and another Lenin Jacki Fernandiz when they were in a bus which had to proceed to Hubli from Karwar. The Customs Authorities seized those gold bangles on receipt of information that they were illegally imported into the Indian Territory from Goa, contrary to statutory provisions.3. A few days after the seizure of these bangles, the petitioner before us Manohar Vinayak Kudtarkar presented an application to the Customs Authorities, claiming those bangles as belonging to him. His case was that he handed over those twenty-two bangles to t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ningappa Balappa Hadli and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1960
Reported in: 1960CriLJ1472
ORDERA. Narayana Pai, J.1. The appellants, Ningappa Palappa Hadli and Gudigeppa Balappa Hadli, were respectively the first 2nd the second accused in Sessions Case No. 48 of 1957 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwar. They and 7 others were tried together upon the charge that on or about the 18th day of July 1957 at Huilgol village they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, with the common object of Committing the murders of Sivappa Gangappanavar and Ningappa Gangappanavar and that, in prosecution of the said common object, some of them did intentionally cause the deaths of the said Sivappa Gangappanavar and Ningappa Gangappanavar and thereby all of them committed offences punishable Under Section 148 and Under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.Accused Nos. 3 to 9 were acquitted. The appellants were found to be guilty only of causing grievous hurt to Sivappa and Ningappa punishable Under Section 325 of the Penal C...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatappa and ors. Vs. Nagappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Kant323; AIR1960Mys323; ILR1960KAR726
(1) In this appeal, the interpretation of clause (I) of S. 3 of the Hindu Law Women's Rights Act 1933(Mysore Act X of 1933) which shall be hereinafter called the 'Act' comes up for consideration.(2) The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the point in controversy, as determined by the Courts below, briefly stated are as follows : The suit properties belonged to one Subbanna, who died in 1936, leaving behind him his widow Chowdamma and a widowed daughter Pillamma; on the death of Subbanna, the properties devolved on his wife under the provisions of the 'Act'; she took only a limited estate; the said Chowdamma sold on 20-2-1946 1/3rd in the plaint item 4 and the whole of items 5 and 6 to the first defendant for Rs. 300/- as per Exhibit I; on the same day she made a gift of items 1, 2 and 3 and 2/3rds of item four in favour of the second defendant as per the registered gift deed Exhibit II; Pillamma joined her mother in the execution of both these deeds, on 12-7-1948 the first defe...
Tag this Judgment!Agadi Lakshminarayana Chetty and anr. Vs. Hirachand
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Kant317; AIR1960Mys317; ILR1960KAR830
(1) These two appeals raise common questions of law and fact. Hence they could be conveniently dealt with in one judgment as has been done in the Courts below.(2) To bring out the points in controversy debated before this Court, it is necessary to briefly state the material facts. The dispute relates to the plot marked ABCD in the eye sketch annexed to the plaint; it belongs to the Government and it is an open space. The two plaintiffs are owners and occupiers of premises adjoining this plot of land. The defendant has attempted to put up a building in this open space and the plaintiffs-appellants state that the building that he (defendant) proposes to put up would cut off completely the lateral light and air to the premises occupied by them and thus cause substantial injury to them. They also complain that the proposed building would obstruct the right of way that they have acquired over the said plot.(3) The Courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion that the plot ABCD is G...
Tag this Judgment!Neenakshamma and ors. Vs. N.S. Aswathanarayana
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Kant193; AIR1961Mys193
1. Two questions of law have been canvassed before this court, viz., (1) that the plaintiff's suit is barred by Article 44 of the Limitation Act and (2) that on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the courts below should have come to the conclusion that Exhibits XIII to XVI were executed by Laksbmidevamma as the guardian of the minor plaintiff. 2. To properly appreciate the contentions advanced, a few facts need to be stated. The plaintiff filed the present suit, which has given rise to this appeal, for a declaration that the alienations under Exhibits XIII to XVI effected by his mother Lakshmidevamma are not binding on him as the same were not effected by her as his guardian. In the plaint it is specifically stated that the plaintiff does not seek to set aside the deeds in question as he was not a party either directly or constructively to those documents. In substance the suit is one for possession on the basis of title. 3. On the basis of the averments found in the plai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›