Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1967Kant156; AIR1967Mys156
1. The appellant-plaintiff has filed this appeal against the decree dated the 29th Day of November 1959, passed by the Civil Judge at Mysore, in Regular Appeal No. 18 of 1959, by which he allowed the appeal of the defendant, reversed the decree of the trial court and dismissed the plaintiffs suit, and it is the correctness of this decree that is being challenged by the appellant in this appeal.2. The plaintiff is a firm of Messrs. K. S. Lakshminarayana Setty, N. Kamakshiah Setty, trading in silk at Kollegal. In February 1954, the Government of Madras, in the Department of Industries and Commerce called for tenders for the purchase of double and inferior cocoons from the Government Silk Filatures, Kollegal. The plaintiff gave a tender for both the varieties of cocoons and quoted Rs. 1-4-0 per pound for double cocoons and Re. 0-12-0 per pound for inferior cocoons, and also made the required deposit of Rs. 50/- at the treasury under Ext. A-3, dated 1st March 1954.3. By Ext. A-4, the Direc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Kant292; AIR1965Mys292; ILR1965KAR194; (1965)1MysLJ375
(1) This second appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree passed against them by the Second Additional District Judge, Dharwar in Civil Appeal No. 342 of 1958 directing the issue of a permanent injunction restraining them from putting up a structure over their open space marked JKMN in the sketch and from constructing a katta thereon exceeding three feet in height.(2) The plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 192 of 1958 for the reliefs granted to him by the appellate Court, alleging that he was the owner of the house marked ABCD in the sketch attached to the plaint and of the katta with a roof over it. To the front of the katta is the Hanuman temple. The house bears Village Panchayat No. 846. Adjoining the plaintiff's house on its south is the house owned by the defendant, bearing V.P.C. No. 847 with a similar katta to its front. The open space marked JKNM in the sketch in the sketch belongs to the Government and is being used by the plaintiff, defendants and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant13; AIR1966Mys13; (1965)1MysLJ389
(1) The sole question that is submitted for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent-plaintiff gets a cause of action for a suit to claim damages for malicious prosecution against the appellants who filed a complaint for theft before the Sub-Inspector and the latter took no further action on the ground that it was false.(2)The facts as found by the District Judge in R.A. No. 41 of 1960 are that the appellants filed a complaint on 10-12-1959 before the Sub-Inspector of Police at the Police Station at Napaklu alleging that the plaintiff had committed theft of cardomom and fish-traps on 1-12-1959. On receipt of this complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police recorded the statement of defendant No. 1(who is the son of defendant No. 2), went to the house of the plaintiff where he recorded his statement and took a search of his house. He then made a note on the complaint that it was false and ordered it to be filed. The plaintiff then instituted O.S. 364/1959 in the Court of the Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant1; AIR1966Mys1; ILR1965KAR211; (1965)1MysLJ329
Narayana Pai, J. (1) The appellant filed before the court of the civil Judge at Chitradurga Miscellaneous Petition No. 97 of 1962 against his wife under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for a decree for judicial separation. The said petition was filed on 16th October 1962. The respondent appeared on 22nd December 1962 and was granted time to file her objections till 19-1-1963. After receiving her objections on the latter date, the matter was posted for evidence to 23rd February 1963. As the Judge was on casual leave on the said date, it was adjourned to 30th March 1963. On the date, it was adjourned at the request of the appellant petitioner's counsel. Four similar adjournments followed at the request of the petitioner's counsel until on 1-2-1964 the Civil Judge came to passes the following order.'Petitioner by Sri. N. S. A. Respondent by Sri. B.M. Evidence: Sri. N.S.A. prays for permission to retire for want of instructions. Petitioner called out and absent. Respondent by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Kant313; AIR1965Mys313; (1965)1MysLJ232
ORDER(1) The petitioner in this revision petition, was the highest bidder in an auction sale of immovable properties held in Ex. 100/63 on the file of the Munsiff, Arasikere. He deposited one-fourth of the bid amount at the conclusion of the auction sale. By his order dated 18-1-64, the learned Munsiff purported not to accept the bid on the ground that it was too low. The amount deposited was directed to be refunded to the petitioner and a fresh sale was directed to be held. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Munsiff, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.(2) Mr. Narasimha Murthy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that officer conducting the sale had exercised his discretion and accepted the bid, that the Court had not reserved to itself the discretion to accept or not to accept the bid made at the auction sale under its order, that the petitioner who was the highest bidder became the purchaser and that the Court had no power not to accept the bid and to di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1965)IILLJ1Kant
Gopivallabha Ayyangar, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner prays for an order quashing the award dated 10 July, 1962, passed by the industrial tribunal in Mysore, Bangalore, in Industrial Dispute No. 42 of 1961, on a reference made by the Government of Mysore under their order No. PLM. 435 LLD. 61, dated 18 December, 1961. The reference related to the termination of the services of one Muthu Nair who was working as a head dhobi in the establishment of the petitioner. 2. The facts are follows : Muthu Nair was working as a head dhobi in the hotel of the petitioners. He was examined by one doctor, V. G. Ranganathan, the medical officer of the company, first on 20 April, 1961. The employee was found to be suffering from high blood pressure and there was also a murmur in his heart. The employee was advised to take rest for 23 days. Again, the employee was examined on 15 May, 1961. He was advised rest for 15 days. Again, on 5 June 1961, the employee was examined by the company's doctor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant178; AIR1966Mys178
Narayana Pai, J. (1) This is an appeal against the dismissal of the appellant's Miscellaneous Petition No. 92 of 1959 on the file of the District Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, for the dissolution of her marriage with the respondent.(2) The appellant Lalithamma is the first wife of the respondent R. Kannan having been married to him on 14th February 1945. She is the daughter and only child of one Captain B.D. Naidu (P.W. 2) who had seen service in the Indian Army and was at the time of the marriage residing with his wife and daughter at a house called, 'Castle Grace' No. 3 Miller Road, High Grounds, Bangalore. The respondent was at the time of the marriage a medical student studying in Madras. He is the son of one Krishnaswamy Naidu, since deceased, who at the time of the marriage was a building contractor residing at Palani of Madurai District in the State of Madras. The marriage was solemnised at Tiruchanur in Chittoor District which was then part of the State of Madras and now par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Mys20; 1966CriLJ36; (1965)1MysLJ307
ORDER(1) On June 9 1962, according to the evidence of P.W. 1 a police constable who was on patrol duty, accused 1 was walking on the public road after emerging from a tea shop. P.W. 1 according to his story thought that he was drunk and was incapable of taking care of himself and so had committed an offence punishable under Section 76(1)(a) of the Mysore Prohibition Act. It was in that belief that he intercepted accused 1 and directed him to accompany him to the policy station. But on the refusal of accused 1 to do so, he caught hold of his shirt, but, in the meanwhile, accused 2 to 4 who arrived on the scene of occurrence from the direction of the tea shop, pushed P.W. 1 down and accused 2 beat him on his back. (2) When P.W. 1 according to his story blew his whistle, another constable and three others came to the place, and, when the other police constable made an attempt to apprehend the accused, he was also pushed away. (3) It was on the basis of this story that there was a prosecut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant17; AIR1966Mys17; (1965)1MysLJ429
(1) This appeal arises in execution proceedings, and the only question of law for decision is one of limitation. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:(2) One Sadashiva Mathade instituted Civil Suit No. 3 of 1942 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bailhongal, against one Shiddappa Mali. That suit was dismissed. Besides, the Court awarded compensatory costs of Rs. 500 against the plaintiff and directed him to pay the same to the defendant. The appellate Court confirmed that decree in Appeal on 31-1-1946.(3) One Krishnaji Joshi filed Civil Suit No.189/45 against Shiddappa Mali who was the defendant in C.S. No. 3 of 1942, and in whose favour, as already stated, there was decree for payment of Rs. 500 as compensatory costs. Krishnaji attached the said decree in C.S. 3/42 before judgment. Krishnaji's suit was decreed and the order of attachment was made absolute on 14-8-46. Krishnaji then made an application on 23rd July 1946 to the Debt Adjustment Board under the B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant15; AIR1966Mys15; ILR1965KAR50; (1965)1MysLJ386
(1) This is a defendant's appeal and the question of law involved in it is, whether the alienation made by the sole surviving coparcener while there was a widow in the joint family capable of inducting a child by adoption into the joint family, is binding on the subsequently adopted son by the widow, if the alienation is not made for a purpose binding on the estate of the joint family.(2) The facts leading to this appeal may shortly be stated as follows One Siddappa had two sons, Mallappa and Channaveerappa: Channaveerappa pre-deceased Mallappa leaving behind him his wife Mallawa, Mallappa had a son by name Channabasappa who was given in adoption to one Siddappa Bajigoundar in the year 1914. In the year 1926 Mallappa made a gift of the property in dispute in favour of Channabasapa. However, the property which was gifted to Channabasappa was given to Mallawa, the widow of Channaveerappa for her maintenance. Mallawa adopted the defendant on 8th December 1945 to her husband Channaveerappa...
Tag this Judgment!