Karnataka Court February 1961 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re: Mallappa Shivappa Kankanwadi and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1961
Reported in: 1961CriLJ515
1. The appellants were convicted under the second part of Section 304 read with Section 35, I.P.C. and each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years in Sessions Cas3 No. 69 of 1958 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Bijapur.2. The facts of this case can be briefly stated thus:3. P.W. 18 Dundappa was cultivating R. S. No. 26/3 of Shambappa Ukli A-l Mallappa was the son-in-law and A-2 Kallappa was the nephew of P.W. 18; P.W. 18 had grown Javar crop in R. S. No. 26/3; the year 1958 was a near-famine year; therefore, there used to be lot of thefts in the village; with a view to protect the crop, P. W, 18 detailed the two accused to keep watch over the Javar crop in R. S. No. 26/3; on the night of the occurrence, i.e., 4-1-1958, the two accused were sleeping in the field in question; at about midnight, they found somebody stealing the Javar crop; it was quite dark at that time; the accused somehow managed to catch hold of the thief and gave him a good b...
In Re: Jinnappa and Subbappa Gabannavar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1961
Reported in: 1961CriLJ250
K.S. Hegde, J. 1. This is a very sad case. A young lady and two of her children were killed on the night intervening 30rll-56 and 1-12-56 in their residential house in Varoor village, Dharwar District. The accused who is the husband of the deceased Devakka and the father of deceased Nemchandra and Basawwa is charged with having murdered his wife and his two children. 2. The Prosecution case is that the accused who used to suffer from fits of insanity and thus given to insane impulses was also given to gambling which created financial troubles for him and thereby he was constrained to sell portions of his ancestral lands. It is said that his wife being worried about his conduct used to constantly find fault with him. This is said to be the motive for the murders in question. We have the evidence of P. W. 1. the police patil on this Point.3. The pleas taken on behalf of the accused are somewhat incongruous. He denies having anything to do with the incident in question but at the same tim...
In Re: R. Muniswami
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-1961
Reported in: 1961CriLJ512
K.S. Hegde, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted both under Section 302 I.P.C. as well as under Section 392 I.P.C in Bangalore Sessions Case No. 32 of 1958 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore. For the offence of robbery he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and for the offence of murder he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. He challenges the correctness of his convictions as well as the sentences imposed on him.2. The offence under Section 392 I.P.C. was tried by the learned Sessions Judge with the aid of a jury, whereas the offence under Section 300 I.P.C. was tried by him.3. The learned Sessions Judge has not discussed the evidence in considering the case of the accused under see. 302 I.P.C. He merely relied on his charge to the Jury. The charge to -the Jury is very short but can hardly be said to be adequate; It is undoubtedly lacking in details and has failed to comply with the requirements of law. The prosecution case is th...
In Re: Shamarao Bhairu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1961
Reported in: 1961CriLJ253
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The appellant Shyama Rao was convicted under Section 302, I, P. G. for the murder of his father Ghairu on the morning of 13-1-1959 at Khemanna's land, in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1959 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Belgaum, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by that order, he has come up in appeal to this Court.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that there was enmity between the appellant and his father Khairu; the appellant was the eldest son of deceased Bhairu, who had two other sons named Devappa and Parashuram; about three years prior to the 00-currence there was a partition in the family of deceased Bhairu; thereafter, the appellant and Devappa lived together in a separate house while the deceased and his youngest son Parashuram lived together in another house; Devappa died several months before the occurrence; thereafter, his wife P. W. 3 Gangubai was unable to live with the appellant due to constant quarrels between the t...
H. Hutche Gowda and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Mys66
A. Narayana Pai, J.1. In these several Writ Petitions by the employees of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department impugning the validity of certain orders passed against them by an officer of the Department in disciplinary proceedings instituted against them, certain common points of law arise. Therefore, they have been heard together. The learned counsel on both sides, for the sake of convenient disposal of these cases, addressed us in the first instance on these general points of law and thereafter proceeded to deal with the facts and circumstances peculiar to individual cases. We propose to follow the same method in disposing of these cases.2. The common points fall under two categories : The first of them deals with the competency of the officer who made the orders and the second with the correctness or validity of the orders in the light of the rules and standing orders governing the procedure in respect of disciplinary action.3. The particular officer, whose competency is...
H. Venkatanarayana Vs. H.R. Seshagiri Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Kant197; AIR1961Mys197
ORDER1. The petitioner was the defendant in the court below, and, at one stage, he was held to he not an agriculturist, as defined by the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act- It was the plaintiff who alleged that he was an agriculturist, and this allegation he made, for the purpose of obtaining the benefit of the larger period of limitation, prescribed by Section 24 of the Act.From that finding of the Court below, the plaintiff presented a revision petition to this Court, and this Court set aside the finding of the Court below and remanded the matter to it for disposal according to law, and for the determination of the question whether the defendant was an agriculturist, by the application of the amended definition, of an agriculturist contained in the Act, after its amendment by Mysore Act No. XIII of 1953. The direction given by this Court in that revision petition reads:'The finding is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court below for disposal according to law.'M...
Anusuya Bai and ors. Vs. B.N. Ramaiah Raju
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Kant238; AIR1961Mys238; ILR1961KAR797
ORDER1. In O.S. No. 238 of 1948-49, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the petitioners in this revision petition were some of the defendants. The respondent was the plaintiff. That was a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that he was the owner of a house and for possession thereof to him. His suit was dismissed by the Sub-ordinate Judge, but, in the appeal preferred by him to the District Judge, he obtained the decree which he wanted. In Second Appeal No. 497 of 1953, this Court set aside the decree made by the District Judge, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. But, during the interregnum between the date of the decree made by the District Judge and that of this Court, the plaintiff executed his decree and secured possession of the house. After the second appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed by this Court the Petitioners made an application for restitution, under the provisions of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respo...
Union of India by General Manager, Southern Ry., Madras Vs. S.K. Abdul ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant23; AIR1962Mys23
Hombe Gowda, J.(1) The only question for determination in this Second Appeal is whether or not the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of damages in respect of consignment of goods despatched from Agra to Shimoga is barred by limitationn. The decision on this point depends on our decision as to which of the Articles of the limitationn Act whether Article 30 or Article 31 of limitationn Act governs the case. (2) The relevant facts are these: Sri Prakash Dall Mills of Agra consigned 200 bags of Toordhal to Shimoga and entrusted the goods to the present appellant and obtained the railway receipt. The railway receipt was endorsed in favour of the respondent to enable him to take delivery of the goods on arrival of Shimoga . The wagon containing the goods arrived at Shimoga on 31-7-1952. The respondent examined the goods and found that the bags containing the Toordhal had been damaged and there was some pilferage also. He , therefore, applied for and obtained open delivery of the good...
Kolagada Poranna Vs. Palthur Vishweshwarayya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant71; AIR1962Mys71
ORDER(1) Mr. Srinivasarao's contention is that the District Judge having found that the landlord was in occupation of another non-residential building for the purpose of his business, to the possession of which he was entitled, should not have made out a new case for the landlord that there had been some act of subletting by the petitioner to his son. (2) Mr. Jayamahadev Prasad made a submission that it is open to him to support the conclusion of the District Judge, not only on the ground on which, his judgment rests but also on the ground which was alleged by the landlord, although it was not upheld by the District Judge. It is in evidence that the landlord is a young man carrying on stationery business and that when he made that application he was in occupation of non-residential build belonging to someone else. The trustees who were in management of that building, according to the landlord, had issued a notice to the landlord calling upon him to quit and delivery possession of the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›