Karnataka Court November 1962 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.
S. Thimmappa and anr. Vs. Gopiamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Kant276; AIR1964Mys276
1. The only point urged in this appeal is that the plaint claim is barred by Order 11, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the point in issue are as follows:-- One Sesha Perjury executed a will on 4-6-1956 bequeathing all his properties to some of his relations. He died on 1-9-1956. Under the will, the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to get an annuity of 40 muras of rice. Out of these 40 muras, 20 muras are payable at the end of January of every year. The remaining 20 muras are payable at the end of March, every year. On 25-3-1957 the plaintiff filed a Small Cause Suit No. 126-57 on the file of the learned Munsiff, Mangalore, claiming the portion of the annuity payable at the end of January 1957. That plaint was returned to the plaintiff as that Court held that the suit should have been instituted as an original suit. The plaint was re-presented to the proper Court on 11-6-1957. The claim made in that suit was ultimately settled out...
ijjabba Beary Vs. Ijjinabha Alias Ijjabha Beary
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Kant24; AIR1964Mys24; (1963)2MysLJ43
1. This second appeal arises from the decision of the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge of South Kanara, in Appeal Suit No. 89 of 1957 on his file. That appeal in its turn arose from the decision of the learned Additional District Munsiff, Karkala, in O. S. No. 132 of 1955 on his file, therein the plaintiff-appellant prayed far a decree for possession of the suit property on the allegation that he is the owner of the suit site and that the defendant-respondent has trespassed into the same during his absence and built a house therein; hence he is entitled to a decree forpossession with mesne profits. The defendant contended that he is the owner of the suit property. Alternatively the contended that he built the house in the suit site under bona fide belief that he was the assignee of the land in question and therefore he is entitled to get compensation for the improvements effected by him in the suit site. 2. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit site was assign...
H.C. Ramaswamy Iyengar and ors. Vs. H.C. Lakshminarasimhan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1962
Reported in: AIR1965Kant87; AIR1965Mys87
ORDER1. This petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act relates to the estate of one H. Channkeshava Iyengar who was a permanent resident of the City of Mysore and died in that city on 12-6-1959. He left a widow Venkatalakshmma, 3 daughters Lakshmma, Jayalakshamma and Vedavalli, and 4 sons Ramaswamy Iyengar, Lakshminarasimhan, Narayana and Krishnamurthy. The widow is the second petitioner; the first, third and the fourth sons are respectively petitioners 1, 3 and 4. The second son is respondent 1 and three daughters respondents 2, 3 and 4.(2) Excluding paras 1 and 2 giving addresses for service of parties, all material allegations are contained in para 3 of the petition.(3) The relationship stated above is set out in paragraph 3(1) of the petition.(4) In paragraph 3(2) of the petition it is stated that the deceased H. Channakeshava Iyengar had made a will on 1st June 1959 which was registered as Document No. 18 in Book III, Volume 50, pages 102-113 at the office of the Sub...
Sudha Alias Gulabi Vs. Sankappa Rai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys245; ILR1963KAR121; (1963)1MysLJ437
ORDERK.S. Hegde, J.1. In this revision petition, the validity of Section 10 of the Madras Aliyasanthana Act, 1949 (Madras Act No. IX of 1949) to be referred to hereinafter as the 'Act', is questioned on various grounds.2. The material facts are as follows: The petitioner and the respondent were married on 10-6-1954. The petitioner begot two children (twins) by the respondent on 8-5-1955. For sometime after their marriage, it is said that their married life ran on smooth lines. Thereafter differences arose between them. Ultimately the respondent filed O. P. No. 17 of 1961 in the Court of the learned District Munsiff, Puttur, under Sections 8 and 10 of the 'Act' for the dissolution of the marriage. The trial Court by its order dated 4-4-1962 has dissolved the marriage.3. The trial Court did not, and in fact, if the provisions of the 'Act' are valid, could not go into the grounds set out in support of or in opposition to the prayer made in the petition. It proceeded to pass a decree for d...
T.S. Gurusiddiah Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys109; (1963)1MysLJ127
A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. On August 2, 1962, the Petitioner who was holding the post of an Assistant in the Secretariat of the Government of Mysore was promoted to officiate as Superintendent in the Home Department of that Secretariat on 'a purely temporary basis.' Two days later, on August 4, 1962 that promotion was revoked by an order which reads: 'GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE.No. GAD 187 ASP 1962.Mysore Government,Secretariat, Vidhana Soudha,Bangalore, dated 4th Aug. 1962.Shravan Saka Era 1884.OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM.Reference: O. M. No. GAD 187/52 dated 2-8-1962.In the O. M. referred to above Shri (SIC). S. Gurusiddiah, Assistant, Mysore Government Secretariat, was promoted to officiate as a Superintendent, purely on a temporary basis. It has since been brought to notice that a departmental enquiry is at present pending against the official. This fact was lost sight of at the time when his promotion orders were issued. According to Om. No. GAD (S-1) 56 SSR 59, dated 9-10-1959 he should not have ...
K. Venkannachar Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys207; ILR1963KAR99; (1963)1MysLJ96
A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. The short question involved in this writ petition is whether an application for renewal of a permit under the provisions of Section 58, M. V. Act should be accompanied by a certificate of solvency. The petitioner is a person who operates a stage carriage between Holavanahalli and Bangalore in the Districts of Tumkur and Bangalore during the last 30 years under the permits granted and renewed from time to time. But when he made an application for the renewal of that permit for a period of five years from April 1, 1961, he was called upon to produce a solvency certificate the production of which is in a proper case required by Rule 144 of the Mysore Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Rules, 1945. That Rule reads:'144. Application form for permit: Every application for a permit should be in one of the appropriate forms, namely, 21, 21-A, 21-B, 22, 23, 24 and 25 appended to these rules and shall be addressed to the Regional Transport Authority in accordance with Sectio...
Chandrasekhar (S.) Vs. Abdullah (H.) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-01-1962
Reported in: ILR1963KAR85; (1963)IILLJ675Kant; (1963)1MysLJ309
ORDERNittoor Sreenivasa Rau, C.J.1. This writ petition arises from an application filed by respondent 1 for recovery of two months' bonus in respect of the year ending 31 March, 1956, under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act from the present petitioner whose employee he was. The petition was resisted on various grounds the most important of them being that bonus by way of an ex gratia payment was not recoverable under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. Other contentions raised were that S. 15 having been amended by the time the application was filed, it was the amended provision which excluded such a claim that was applicable and he was not entitled to the bonus and that the application was barred by limitation. 2. The District Magistrate of South Kanara who was the authority designated under S. 15 of the Act to hear and decide claims under the Act took the view that the bonus claimed did not come under the definition 'wages' under the amended Act which was in operation at the time the ...
K. Srirangachar Vs. the State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-01-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys247; (1963)1MysLJ1
Narayana Pai, J.1. The petitioner, who retired on 5th June 1952 on pension from the service of the erstwhile State of Mysore as Inspector of Police, prays in this Writ Petition for the issue of an appropriate Writ directing the respondents, viz., the State Government and the Accountant General in Mysore, to pay him dearness allowance in respect of his pension in terms of the orders of the State Government dated 25th January 1957, 6th August 1958 and 27th February 1961 annexed to the petition as Exs. B, C and D respectively, declaring as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution a certain interpretation placed on these orders by the Accountant General, which was incorporated in. September 1958 as a new Rule No. 147-A in the Mysore Treasury Code as a result of which, he complains, he has been deprived of the dearness allowance justly due to him under the said Government Orders.2. tinder the Rules in force at the time the petitioner retired from service governing pension, he became enti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›