Karnataka Court March 1961 Judgments
In Re: Virabhadrappa Kallappa Sajjan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant138; AIR1962Mys138
(1) Both these appeals arise from the decision of the learned Session Judge Dharwar in Sessions Case No. 62/59 on his fire, Criminal Appeal No. 160/60 was filed by A-1 Veerabhadrappa Kallappa Sajjan. Criminal Appeal No. 161/60 filed by A2 Sangaya Richaya Hire math and A3 Sathappa Ningappa shelavadi. All the three accused were tried for offences under Schedule. 302, 207 and 435 read with S. 24, J.P.C. They were acquired of the offfence under S. 302/34 J.P.C. but they were convicted under the latter two provisions. For the offence under S. 201/34 J.P.C. each one of them was sentenced to suff v.rigerous imprisonment for 7 years and o pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to sutffer further rigorous imprisonments for 6 months. Similarly for the offence under S. 435/34 J.P.C. they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- . In default to suffer further rigoous imprisonment for 6 months. The two substantive sentences were ordered to rum conscutive...
Tag this Judgment!Tavawwa Vs. Chinnappa Mallapa Balamatti
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant130; AIR1962Mys130; ILR1961KAR519
Hombe Gowda, J.(1) This is a defendant's Second Appeal and arises out of proceedings started by the respondent against the appellant for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Courts below have concurrently held that the appellant has withdrawn from the society of the respondent without any reasonable excuse and have accordingly granted a decree in favour of the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights.(2) The appellant and the respondent who are permanent residents of Jamkhandi Taluka, were married about eight years prior to 6/11/1956 the marriage; disputes arose between them subsequently and as a result the appellant withdrew from the company of the respondent and went away to her parent's house and refused to rejoin the respondent to give him conjugal happiness and comforts. The respondent, therefore, instituted proceedings under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights by presenting a...
Tag this Judgment!B.R. Subbanna Vs. M.P. Krishna Iyengar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant5; AIR1962Mys5
Hombe Gowda, J. This is a plaintiff's Second Appeal and arises out of a suit filed by him for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,000/- being the principal and interest executed by the respondent in favour of his father Rama Subbiah. The mortage-bond stipulated a period of six years from its date for redemption. It further stipulated annually and that interest at nine per cent. was payable annually and that if there was a default in its payment during any one of the years the mortage money without waiting till the stipulated period.The respondent did not pay the interest regularly as it fell due. Hence the mortage on 20/12/1938 issued a registered notice calling upon the respondent to pay up the entire mortage money with in ten days of the receipt of the notice. He further stated in the said notice that if the respondent failed to pay the amount without any further notice. In spite of this notice the mortgagor did not pay the mortage money but yet Rama Subbiah ( the mortgagee) did not file ...
Tag this Judgment!Doddamallappa Chaannabasappa, Kari Vs. Gangappa Shiddappa Gulganji and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant44; AIR1962Mys44
(1) Before proceeding to deal with the merits of this Second Appeal , it will be necessary to dispose of an application which has been filed by the appellant . This application has been marked I.A. No. 11 and purports to be under S. 153, C.P.C. reads with Order 1 Rule 10 and S. 151, C.P.C. The fact, which have given occasion to this application are as follows: The present appellant was the defendant in the suit before the trial Court. That was a suit which the plaintiff had brought for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff therein claimed that he had become entitled to the suit schedule property by value of Exhibit 27 which was a sale deed dated 17.4.1946 executed by the defendant. That suit having been dressed by the trial Court, the defendant had preferred an appeal which came up for beating before the second Extra Assistance Judge, Belgaum . That appeal was heard by that learned judge on 4.4.1957 and judgment was pronounced on the same day, dismissing t...
Tag this Judgment!Malleshappa Hanamappa Bellary Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant146; AIR1962Mys146; ILR1961KAR1027
Somnath Iyer, J. (1) The petitioner was on November 1, 1942, a Junior Assistant in the Political and Services Department, in the state of Bombay. On September 17, 1943, he was sent on deputation, to the Department of Civil Supplies. By an order made by the Controller of Civil Supplies on September 23, 1943, he was appointed with effect from September 18, 1943 a senior Assistant. In that Department, to which he was deputed, the petitioner rose to the position of a Rational Officer. On March 1, 1954, when the Department of Civil Supplies was abolished, he reverted to the Department of Public Works. When he so reverted, he was drawing in the Department of ?Civil Supplies a pay of Rs. 460/- in the grade 350-30-650. (2) But, on his reversion to the Department of Public Works, the petitioner was appointed to the post of a Junior Assistant in a pay of Rs. 120/-. (3) On the representations made by the petitioner against the fixation of his rank and pay in that way, to final decision was taken ...
Tag this Judgment!C.M. Armugam Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Mys198; 1961CriLJ509
ORDER1. This revision petition arises from a case in which the petitioners are being prosecuted for offences under Sections 163 and 420, I. P. C. The case is being tried by a Special. Judge under Section 6 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952; under Section 8 cf that Act, the procedure prescribed being that for the trial of warrant cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The stage reached in the, case is that charges have been framed against the accused and the prosecution is examining its witnesses.The accused have not yet entered on their defence. The petitioners (Accused) applied to the Court to summon a witness for the production of certain documents. The learned Judge rejected the application taking the view that the accused were not entitled to make the application until they had entered on their defence.2. According to the learned Judge Section 251-A, which now regulates the procedure for warrant cases, accords the accused such a right only when that stage is reached an...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mallappa Shivingappa Chanagri
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant82; AIR1962Mys82
Hedge, J. (1) An interesting question of law which does not appear to be covered by any decision of the supreme Court or this Court arises for decision in this case. (2) The appellant was charged for the murder of his mistress Shiddawwa. It is said that due to some petty quarrel the appellant cut her on here back on the night of 7-2-1959 with a sickle and about a month thereafter she died. The injured was admitted to the hospital on 8-2-1959 but, we are told that she was discharged from hospital as desired by her relations on 5-3-1959 and that she died on 5-3-1959. Post-mortem examination of her dead body very soon after her death.(3) The prosecution produced in support of its case (1) the evidence of the alleged eye-witness and (2) the dying declaration of the deceased marked as Ex. 5 (b). So far as the evidence of the occurrence witness is concerned all of them without exception have turned hostile to the prosecution and the learned Government Pleader conceded that without the assist...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimappa Laxmappa Ganiyal and anr. Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ51
1. We do not think that the material on record justifies the conviction of the appellants. The trial Court, i.e., the Court of Session Belgaum in Sessions Case No. 141 of 1959 convicted both the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to suffer imprisonment for Me. It also convicted them under Section 148 I.P.C. and for that offence sentenced each one of them to suffer 18 months R.I.In that court there were as many as 5 accused; all of them were charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 as well as under Section 148 I.P.C. But A-3 to A-5 were acquitted on the ground that their presence at the time of the, occurrence was not satisfactorily established. Curiously enough, the learned Sessions Judge thought that in spite of the acquittal of those accused, he could still convict the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 as well as under Section 148 I.P.C. as in his view, for which there is no basis, five persons took part in...
Tag this Judgment!Konabally Vasanthappa Vs. Konabally Channabassappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant98; AIR1962Mys98
(1) This second appeal has its origin in a suit brought by the appellant who was plaintiff 1, for partition and possession of his half share in a property which at one stage belonged to his maternal grand father. That maternal grand father executed on November 12, 1919, Exhibit B-3, gift deed in favour of his two daughters Bandevva and Siddavva. Bandevva is the mother of plaintiff 1 and defendant 2, in this litigation. Siddavva died unmarried.(2) On September 28, 1935 that maternal grand father cancelled Exhibit B-3 and executed another gift deed, Exhibit B-2 . By the document, he made somewhat inconsistent dispositions. By the first part of that gift deed, he purported to make a gift of the suit properly in favour of defendant 2. He directed that the property should be under the management of the mother of defendant 2 attained the age of majority. But, by another part of Exhibit B-2 what the donor did was to direct the property which was the subject- matter of the gift to be enjoyed n...
Tag this Judgment!V. Govindrajalu and ors. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Kant275; AIR1962Mys275
K.S. Hedge, J. (1) These appeals arise out of the decision of the learned Second Judge Belgaum, in Sessions Case No. 47 of 1958 on his file. Cri. A. No. 404/58 was filed by the first accused (Mithalal Tarachand Shah of Athani); Cr. A. No. 393/58 was filed by A-2 ( V. Govindrajulu Naidu of Pudukkupponi and A-3 (P.A. Shanmugha Sundaram Mudaliar of Madras); Cr. A. No. 410/58 was filed by A-V. Kalyankoti Ayengar of Madras); Cr. No. 31 /59 was filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused under some of the charges. Pending hearing of the appeals A-3 (P.A. Shanmugha Sundaram Mudaliar of Madras) died. As the Court below has imposed a sentence of fine, as well, on A-3, his legal representative was brought on record but she is unrepresented. For the sake of convenience we shall refer to the parties as arrayed in the trial Court.(2) The appellants were convicted under various heads and sentence other imprisonment as well as of fine, the details of which are not necessary at this stage,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »