Karnataka Court February 1968 Judgments
Ramachandra Vs. Anasuyabai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant64; AIR1969Mys64; (1968)2MysLJ155
Kalagate, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. His suit, in so far as it relates to the recovery of possession of the suit properties as the adopted son of one Krishnaji, has been dismissed by the trial court, Hence the appeal.2. Plaintiff, by his plaint, dated 7th March 1958, alleged that he was adopted by Krishnabai (defendant 1), the widow of Krishnaji, on the 26th June 1947. Krishnaji's father Swami Rao had two brother viz., Venkata Rao and Bheema Rao. Venkata Rao died in 1870; prior to his death he had to become separated from his two brothers Swami Rao and Bheema Rao, and got certain properties. But, after his death, his widow Jeevubaibai, who died in 1906, released the properties obtained by her husband on partition in favour of Krishnaji and two sons of Bheema Rao. Thereafter there was a partition between Krishnaji (his adoptive father) and the two sons of Bheema Rao, and in that partition, the suit properties came to the share of Krishnaji. Krishnaji died in the year 1900 and it w...
Tag this Judgment!Jinaraja Hegde Vs. Kusumu and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant265; AIR1969Mys265; (1968)2MysLJ550
1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He and the seven defendants were members of an aliyasanthana family. The plaintiff is the yejaman of the third branch of that family, whereas the defendants are the members of the second branch.2. On April 27, 1936 a maintenance arrangement was entered into between the members of the family which was recorded in the registered agreement Exhibit A-1 executed on that date. For the more convenient enjoyment of the properties, certain properties were allotted to each branch of the family. Since a larger extent of properties was allotted to the second branch should for equalisation, pay to the members of the third branch, five muras of rice every year. The liability to pay this quantity of rice in that way was charged on the income of the properties allotted to the defendants branch.3. The defendants paid to the members of the third branch five muras of rice only until April 13, 1952 but neglected to do so thereafter. There was a part...
Tag this Judgment!Bore Gowda and anr. Vs. B. Nagaraju and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant8; AIR1969Mys8; ILR1968KAR181; (1968)2MysLJ42
1. The appellants before this Court were defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. 60 of 1962 on the file of the Munsiff, Mandya. Respondent No. 1 who was the plaintiff, filed a suit for setting aside the decree passed in O. S. No. 3 of 1958 on the file of the same Court which was subsequently confirmed in appeal, R. A. No 77 of 1959, by the learned Civil Judge, Mandya. The first suit O. S. 3/58 had been filed by respondent-2, the second plaintiff as guardian of plaintiff-1, for partition and possession of the one-third share in the joint family properties. The plaintiff's case is that he is the son of Byregowda by his third wife. Byregowda and the appellants 1 and 2 in the first suit, were brothers and members of a joint family. For the sake of convenience, in this appeal, the parties will be referred to by their designation in O. S. 3 of 1958. The suit O. S. 3/58 filled on behalf of the plaintiff by his mother plaintiff-2 as his guardian was dismissed. The appeal filed against this order (R. A. 77...
Tag this Judgment!Maridev (M.) (M. Mariyappa) Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1968
Reported in: ILR1968KAR270; (1969)ILLJ284Kant; (1968)1MysLJ325
Govinda Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner and respondents 3 to 8 are excise Inspectors (Juniors in the Mysore Excise Service. The posts of Excise Inspectors, Senior and Junior, are class III posts; the posts of the Assistant District Excise Officers are class II posts. The petitioner has challenged the order of the State Government (respondent 1) made on 27 September, 1967 appointing respondents 3 to 8 to be in independent charge of the posts of Assistant District Excise officers at different places. The challenge is made on two grounds : first the impugned appointments are opposed to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, and second, the petitioner being senior to respondents 5 to 8, he should have been appointed and by the appointment of his juniors, the petitioner has been denied the protection guaranteed by Arts. 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. 2. In order to appreciate the contentions urged by the petitioner, it is necessary to set out the circumstances under which the impugned order c...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: H.B. Shamasundariah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1968
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1149
M. Santhosh, J.1. These two Criminal Appeals arise out of one common judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore, convicting the appellant (accused) Shamasundaraiah of the various offences with which he was charged. The appellant, who will be hereinafter referred to as the accused, was found guilty of the offences under Sections 467, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Case No. 38 of 1965. He was also found guilty of the said three offences in addition to the offences under Section 474 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 89 of 1965. He was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences in both the Sections Cases and the sentences were directed to run concurrently. These appeals are directed against the said convictions and sentences passed on him by the learned Sessions Judge.2. The Prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows:The accused was working as a Gash Clerk in the Court of the Munsiff at Nanjangud. After the comin...
Tag this Judgment!Ramagouda and anr. Vs. Gonhal Basangouda Basavarajappa Rajendra Gunj R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant111; AIR1969Mys111; (1968)1MysLJ466
1. The appellants before this court were defendants in the trial Court. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,640 I. G. The suit was filed by a firm by name 'Gonal Basangouda Basavarajappa Rajendra Ganj, Raichur' through owner Mahadevappa. The case of the plaintiff was that the father of the defendants was running a Dalal shop at Raichur and for the purposes of his trade, obtained the said loan, after signing in the account books of the firm; that the deceased father of the defendants did not return the loan in spite of several demands and after his death, since the defendants also failed to pay the amount, the suit against the defendants had to be filed. The main contention of the defendants was that the suit was not maintainable as it was a partnership firm and Mahadevappa was not its sole proprietor. The defendants also denied that their deceased father took the loan.2. The learned Civil Judge, after recording fully the evidence, dismissed the suit merely on the...
Tag this Judgment!Special Land Acquisition Officer City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Kant319; AIR1968Mys319; ILR1968KAR165; (1968)1MysLJ369
(1) The appellant in this miscellaneous second appeal is the Special Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore. 22 guntas of dry land and one guntas of kharab land, belonging to the respondent out of S. No. 8/18 of Jedahalli Village Bangalore North Taluka was sought to be acquired by the preliminary Notification dated 5-11-1959. We are concerned in this appeal only with 22 guntas of dry land. The compensation awarded to one guntas of kharab land is not in question. The Land Acquisition Officer, by his award dated 31-3-1960, granted Rs. 3,188/- per acre for the said dry land. The reference made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1961 (which will be hereinafter called as the Act) was rejected by the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore. In the appeal filed by the claimant, the learned 2nd Additional District Judge of Bangalore enhanced the compensation to Rs.7,000/- per acre for this dry land. This appeal is directed against the said order passed by the learn...
Tag this Judgment!Ramappa Parappa Khot and ors. Vs. Gourwwa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Kant270; AIR1968Mys270; (1968)1MysLJ277
ORDER(1) This revision petition is directed against an order made by the Civil Judge ordering payment of interim maintenance to the respondent who made an application for permission to sue as a pauper. In the application presented by her which contained all the particulars which have to be stated in a plaint, she sought a decree for the cancellation of three gift deed executed by her husband who is defendant 1 in favour of defendants 2 to 5. Defendants 2 and 3 are the brother's sons of defendant 1. Defendant 4 is his sister's son and defendant 5 is the plaintiff's brother. In the alternative, she asked for a decree for maintenance. During the pendency of this application, defendant 1 died on December 5, 1965 and the respondent in this revision petition made an application for interim maintenance. The Civil Judge directed payment of a sum of Rs. 80 a month as interim maintenance.(2) The principal contention in this revision petition is that since the proceeding which was pending before ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Someswara Vs. Leelavathi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Kant274; AIR1968Mys274; ILR1968KAR260; (1968)1MysLJ447
Chandrashekhar, J.(1) This is an appeal by a husband whose petition for a decree for divorce, was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Bangalore. The ground on which the divorce was sought, was that the wife (the respondent) had not complied with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, for a period of over two years after passing of the decree.(2) Certain facts which are not in dispute may be stated at the outset. The spouses are Hindus and were married in February 1955. The marriage was consummated a few months later. The appellant has been residing in Magadi Road, Bangalore, in a joint family home consisting of his parents, his seven brothers four of whom are married, their wives, and children. After living with her husband till May 1956, the respondent went to her parents house in Malleswaram, Bangalore. In November 1956 she gave birth to a son. She continued to live in her parents' house.(3) On 18-4-1958 the husband filed a petition against the wife under section 9 of the Hindu Marri...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Saheb Vs. Hajra Begaum
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Kant351; AIR1968Mys351; (1968)2MysLJ14
1. The property which is the subject matter of the suit to which this second appeal relates belonged to a certain Lal Mohamed who died in the year 1950 leaving behind him his widow Ashabi and his two grand-daughters, the plaintiff and the second defendant. Mahaboobbi, the mother of the plaintiff and defendant 2 predeceased Lal Mohamed. Ashabi made a gift of the properties of Lal Mohamed to her brother's son defendant 1 under two gift deeds Exhibits P-1 and P-2.2. In the suit brought by her, the plaintiff claims that she was one of the heirs of Lal Mohamed and was entitled to 3/8 share in his properties. So she sought a decree for a declaration that she was the owner of that 3/8 share and for possession thereof. The suit was resisted by defendant 1 on the ground that Ashabi excluded the plaintiff and her sister from inheritance and that the gift deeds Exhibits P-1 and P-2 entitled defendant 1 to the whole of the suit property.3. The contention that the plaintiff and defendant 2 did not ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »