Karnataka Court January 1961 Judgments

Thukkojappa Vs. Sanahuchappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1962Kant238; AIR1962Mys238

(1) Second Appeal No. 982/59 arises out of a suit brought by Satina Hochappa for a declaration that the document executed on September 3, 1945, in favour of Tulojappa which was marked in this litigation as Exhibit P-9 recorded only a mortgage by conditional sale and not a sale-deed. Sanna Hochappa having been found to be an agriculturist as defined by the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act, the Court of first instance allowed oral evidence to be preduced in support of that contention. P.W. 5 the scribe or Exhibit P-9 and P.W. 6 its attestor, gave evidence in support of the case set up by Sanna Honechappa which was to the effect that he it was who constructed the house now existing on the site was also believed by book the Courts. The recorded a finding that Exhibit P-9 therefore was nothing more than mortgage by conditional sale and that Sanna Hochappa was entitled to the declaration which he rayed for. (2) Tukoappa who is aggrieved by this declaration made by the Courts below is the ap...

Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of M ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1962Kant25; AIR1962Mys25; ILR1961KAR450; (1961)IILLJ583Kant

Narayana Pal, J. (1) In this matter, the question for consideration is the maintainability or otherwise of a Writ Petition sought to be presented by the Government Press Employees' Association represented by its General Secretary as the Petitioner. The proposed respondent is the Government of Mysore represented by the Director of Printing, stationary and Publication in Mysore, Bangalore. The prayer is that this court may issue an appropriate Writ quashing the orders of the respondent promoting certain employees of the Government Press named in the second column of Annexure 1 to the petition and directing the respondent to promote the employees named in the first column of the same Annexure. (2) The wording of the prayer as well as of Paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit indicates that three had been several orders made by the respondent individually promoting the employees mentioned in column 2 of the Annexure. This is made further clear from an application filed by the petitioner ...

D.R. Karigowda and ors. Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Hassan and o ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1962Kant27; AIR1962Mys27

Narayana Pai, J.(1) This Writ Petition has some connection with the Scheme for nationalisation of Road transport services on certain of the routes in Hassan District, which was the subject- matter of Writ Petition No. 72 of 1960 and connected petitions in which we have just pronounced the order. This Writ Petition is by four private operators of transport services in Hassan District, three of whom were petitioners in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. It came to be filed in the following circumstances: (2) Stage carriage permits of about 116 operators of the said District including those of the petitioners herein were due to expire at the end of September 1959. All these operators had applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Hassan, for renewal of their permits. All these applications were advertised under section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act by a notification which appeared in the Mysore Gazette dated the 3rd of September 1959, fixing the 12th of October 1959 as the date f...

Madhav Janaradan Vs. Shrinivas Narayan Naik and anr.

Court: Karnataka

S.R. Das Gupta, C.J. (1) The only point raised in this appeal is the point of limitation. It arises in this way :(2) The respondent filed a suit to enforce a simple mortgage debt dated 9.7.1932. the period for redemption fixed in the mortgage was four years. This suit was filed on 2.6.1952, i.e. after the period of limitation. But the limitation is sought to be saved by an acknowledgment made by the 1st defendant on 26.9.50. The plaintiff, before filing this suit, had started proceedings under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act on 31.7.1947. That proceeding was dismissed on 12.6.1950 on the ground that the petitioner was not a debtor.Section 52 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947 provides that in computing the period of limitation for the institution of any suit or proceeding in respect of any debt due from any person who is held not to be a debtor by the Court or the Court in appeal, the period during which the proceedings in respect of such debt were prosecute...

Baburao Balwant Kurubet Vs. the State of Mysore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1962CriLJ830

ORDERH. Hombe Gowda, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 11959 confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hukeri in Criminal Case No. 543 of 1958. The learned Sessions Judge also confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate confiscating to the State the amount realised by the sale of the rice bags seized from the truck belonging to the petitioner.2. The petitioner was found transporting 64 bags of rice in his truck on 23rd of April 1958 when the same was stopped by the Head Constable near the tollnaka of Sankeshwar. The Head Constable had information to the effect that the petitioner was transporting rice to the State of Bombay. It is on that information he was lying in wait for the petitioner near the tollnaka and immediately the truck came near the tollna...

Abdul Ghanisab Vs. Alampalli Nanjunda Setty and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1962Kant9; AIR1962Mys9

(1) In O.S. 271/1952-53, in the Court of the Munsiff of Chitaldurg, the decree-holder, who is the respondent in the appeal, and two others, used the judgment-debtor, who is the appellant in this appeal for a sum of Rs. 1,970-13-6. In that suit, a consent decree was made against the judgment-debtor for a sum of Rs. 700/-. It was provided by that consent decree that the sum of money should be paid in two equal installments. The first installment was payable on May 28, 1954, and the second, on November 28, 1954. The decree also contained a further provision which was to the effect that if the judgment-debtor committed default in making these payments, the decree-holder would be entitled to recover from the judgment-debtor the entire sum of money claimed in the plaint. (2) The first payment made by the judgment-debtor was a delayed payment. He made that payment on May 31, 1954, with the result that the decree-holder sought to recover from him the entire sum of money claimed in the plaint, ...

Shamsundar and Court Vs. Sha Sunnilal Vesaji and Court and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1962Kant12; AIR1962Mys12

ORDER(1) These two revision petition s arise our of proceedings under second. 73 of the Code of Civil procedure. In civil Revision Petition 827/59 the petitioner was a decree-holder who had obtained a decree against the judgment-debtor against whom the respondent had also obtained a decree. Both these decree-holders had attached certain movable properties belonging to their judgment-debtor and these movable were sold and the money realised by the sale was received by the court on March 17, 1959. By the time those assets were received by the court, both these decree-holders had made applications for the execution of their decrees.(2) After the court below directed payment of the amount in deposit in court realised by the sale to the respondent -decree-holder, the petitioner-decree-holder made an application to the court below reminding that court that his own execution application was will pending before it, and that therefore there should be no payment of the entire amount to the respo...

Subbanna Naik Krishan Naik Vs. Prahlad Ramanna Naik and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1962Kant21; AIR1962Mys21; ILR1961KAR751

ORDER(1) This is a revision petition directed against the order made by the Court below noting aside the ex-parte final decree made in a partition suit. After the preliminary decree to a fourth, share in the family properties and when the suit was posted for the preparation of the final decree, on a date on which the defendants were absent the Court below made the final decree. This application presented by the defendants under Rule 13 of Order IX of the Code of Civil procedure succeeded in the lower Court and this ex-parte decree was set aside.(2) The petitioner before me who is the plaintiff, feeling aggrieved by the order made by the Court below setting aside the ex-parte decree has presented this revision petition.(3) The Court below set aside the ex-parte decree on the ground that the defendants and their pleader could not have been aware of the date to which the suit had been posted and that there was there fore sufficient cause for the absence of the defendants on the date on wh...

Abdul Azeez Vs. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Narayana Pai, J.(1) This Writ Petition is directed against an order of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal dated the 16th of November 1960 passed in Appeals Nos. 450, 546, 553 and 573 of 1960 on its file presented to it under section 64(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The first respondent is the said Tribunal. Respondents 2 to 5 are operators of stage carriage services who are interested in the subject matter in dispute. (2) The petitioner is an operator of stage carriage services in the Districts of Bellary and Chitaldrug. One of the services operated by him was that covering a route between Raydurg and Bellary. In December 1956, the Petitioner applied for an extension of this route from Bellary up to Kampli via Kolur, Kurugodu and Yemmiganur. As the jurisdiction in respect of the matter became transferred from the Regional Transport Authority, Bellary, to the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, the petitioners application was considered by the Bangalore Authority. On 27.9.1957, ...

S.A. Partha and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1961Kant220; AIR1961Mys220

ORDER1. These fifty Writ petitions have been heard together because they raise common questions in regard to the principles on which and the manner in which admissions were made into Professional and Technical Colleges in the State for the academic year 1980-61. The petitioners complain that both the principles and the Procedure followed infringed or abridge their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 29 of the Constitution, and claim that they would otherwise have secured admission. 2. Twenty out of these petitions, viz., W. P. Nos 782, 788, 794, 805, 806, 844, 845, 867, 870, 880, 881, 886, 961, 964, 983, 1018, 1039, 1041, 1077 and 1149 of 1960, relate to Medical Colleges and the remaining thirty, viz., 818, 819, 820, 841, 883, 910, 951, 954, 955, 962, 965, 994, 995, 996, 997, 998, 999, 1000, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1040, 1042, 1058, 1069, 1101, 1105, 1113, 1173 and 1295 of 1960 relate to Engineering Colleges in the State. 3. The State Government maintains three Medical Co...