Karnataka Court January 1965 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.
Narayan Nagappa Hegde Vs. Shankar Narasimha Bhatta
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Kant5; AIR1966Mys5; ILR1965KAR143; (1965)1MysLJ223
ORDER(1) The question of law that has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent in this revision petition relate to the competence of this court to entertain this petition under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to revise the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under S. 23(2) of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 (2) The Petitioner commenced the suit which has given rise to this revision petition, by filing a plaint on 18-5-1959 under S. 7 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906(hereinafter called the Act) in the court of the Mamlatdar (now called the Tahsildar) at Yellapur, praying for the issue of an injunction restraining the respondent from causing disturbance to his peaceful possession and enjoyment of Survey No. 5 of Kodlagadde village. He contended that he had been in possession of the land in spite of the potmulgeri lease that he had executed in favour of the respondent since the Tahsildar declined to certify the sub-leas as being in contravention of the provis...
Lakshminarasimhiah and ors. Vs. Yalakki Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Kant310; AIR1965Mys310; (1965)1MysLJ370
ORDER(1) This revision petition arises out of an interlocutory application by the respondent made under Rule 2 of order 39 to the Code of Civil Procedure, in a suit for a permanent injunction brought by him to restrain the deferring with the plaintiff's possession of the suit lands. The trial court issued an ex parte order of ad interim injunction; but when the defendants entered appearance and moved for vacating the said order, it was dissolved. Against the said order, the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the court of the Civil Judge at Bangalore, who allowed the appeal and granted the temporary injunction as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants have preferred the above said Civil Revision Petition.(2) In order to appreciate the contention raised in this petition, it is necessary to set out the material facts which are not in dispute. The petitioners were the tenants of the suit lands which belonged to one Ramachandra Rao, who, on 24-4-1959 conveyed the said lands t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›