Karnataka Court August 1968 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.
Laxmi and ors. Vs. Parameshwari Hengsu and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant175; AIR1969Mys175; ILR1968KAR931; (1968)2MysLJ454
ORDER1. These Revision Petitions, which are directed against a common order made by the Civil Judge at Mangalore on two interlocutory Applications before him, raise a common question of law as to whether and if so, in what manner, the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 7(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, (Central Act 30 of 1956) operate on the death of a party in a suit for partition of the properties of a Hindu family governed by the Aliyasanthana law.2. The details of the previous proceedings in this matter to the extent necessary for the disposal of the above question are briefly the following:3. The parties are governed by the Aliyasanthana law prevalent in the District of South Kanara. They constituted a family or kutumba descended from a common ancestress Majekke. One Parameshwari and a daughter and a son of hers as plaintiffs instituted Original Suit No. 91 of 1950 before the Court of the Subordinate Judge at South Kanara for partition of its properties, pursuant to an...
Amir Bi and ors. Vs. Committee of Management of Nilasandra Mosque, Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant103; AIR1969Mys103; (1968)2MysLJ410
1. This appeal is presented by the Legal Representatives of defendant 1 Amir Bi and four others against the decree dated January 8, 1964 made by the Additional Civil Judge Bangalore, in R. A. 348 of 1960 decreeing the suit which was dismissed by the trial curt.2. The first respondent, which has been described as the Committee of Management of the Neelasandra Mosque by its President Shaik Abdul Jaleel brought O. S. 153 of 1757 on August 3, 1957 against the defendants claiming possession of the suit schedule property, and, present and future mesne profits.3. The suit property described in the schedule to the plaint consists of items bearing Municipal Door Nos. 247 and 248 situate in Bazaar Street, Neelasandra, Civil Station, Bangalore, together with shops and other buildings now standing thereon. This property, according to the plaintiff, belonged to one Abdul Hussain alias Jani Saheb who executed a Wakfnama in favour of the mosque on April 23, 1948 conveying his right, title and interes...
Hindustan Aircraft, Ltd., Bangalore Vs. Sambandham (G.)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1968
Reported in: [1969(18)FLR92]; (1969)IILLJ451Kant
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Bangalore, in Regular Appeal No. 219 of 1960, reversing those of the Second Munsif, Bangalore, in Original Suit No. 467 of 1947. The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant since the year 1951 as a painter working in the bus-body section of the Hindustan Aircraft (Private), Ltd. (the defendant). It is alleged that the plaintiff was getting Rs. 2-7-0 per day plus dearness allowance of Rs. 41 per month and thus, was getting as average salary of Rs. 110 per month. The plaintiff was, therefore, a daily-rated workman. His services were terminated, as could be seen from the termination notice Ex. p-1 dated 1/3 May, 1957, with effect from 4 p.m. on 6 May, 1957. The reason set out in Ex. P. 1 is that the termination enquiry committee which considered the explanation offered by the plaintiff declined to accept the plaintiff's explanation and decided to terminate his service on grounds of misconduct. The misconduct...
K.V. Subbiah Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MysLJ604
ORDER1. By his order dated 16-10-1967 made in Criminal case No. 6144 of 1966 on the file of his court, The Special First Class Magistrate, Kolar Gold Fields decided that the procedure which had to be adopted for the trial of the accused (the present petitioner), was that prescribed in Section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the correctness of that order that has been challenged in this criminal revision petition which has been filed by the said accused.2. I have heard Sri. A. C. Nanjappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rego, the learned counsel appearing for the State Public Prosecutor.3. The alleged offence for which the accused was being tried before the learned Magistrate, was one punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. It was one in regard to which the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the trial of Warrant cases had to be followed. Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. states that the Magistrate shall--(a) in any case instit...
K.V. Subbaiah Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ754
ORDERM. Sadasivayya, J.1. By his order dated 16.10.1967 made in Criminal Case No. 6144 of 1966 on the file of his court, the Special First Class Magistrate, Kolar Gold Fields decided that the procedure which had to be adopted for the trial of the accused (the present petitioner), was that prescribed in Section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the correctness of that order that has been challenged in this criminal revision petition which has been filed by the said accused.2. I have heard Sri A.C. Nanjappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rego, the learned Counsel appearing for the State Public Prosecutor.3. The alleged offence for which the accused was being tried before the learned Magistrate, was one punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. It was one in regard to which the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the trial of Warrant cases had to be followed. Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. states that the Magistrate shall - (a) i...
Krishna Madiwala (N.) Vs. Inspector of Post Offices, Mangalore South S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1968
Reported in: ILR1968KAR877; (1969)ILLJ660Kant; (1968)2MysLJ426
Somnath Ayyar, J. 1. The petitioner who was a postman in the Karkala unit in the district of South Kanara was transferred to Mangalore on 2 September, 1966 when he applied for leave of more than one category to which he was entitled. The leave granted to him expired on 8 March, 1967, but he reported himself to duty only on 10 March, 1967 when he was not permitted to join duty and was informed by a communication sent to him on 11 March, 1967 that he should be deemed to have resigned his appointment and therefore, ceased to be in Government employment with effect from the forenoon of 9 March, 1967. It is this order and the order made in the unsuccessful appeals preferred by the petitioner which we are asked to quash in this writ petition. 2. In defence of the impugned order dependence was placed by the Central Government Pleader on rule 14(c) of the Fundamental Rules which reads : 'Where a Government servant who is not in permanent employ or quasi-permanent employ fails to resume duty on...
Bisse Gowda and ors. Vs. State of Mysore by Bethamangala Police, Banga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ1170
ORDERM. Sadasivaiya, J.1. The petitioners were the members of the second party in 0. M. C. No. 17 of 1966 in the Court of the Sub. Divisional Magistrate, Kolar. In that case, the present respondents were the members of the first party. Proceedings had been taken under Section 145 of the Criminal P.C., in respect of survey No. 1 of Doddakari village of Bangarapet Taluk. The preliminary order had been made by the Magistrate on 27.4.1966 and the final order was made on 16-10-1967. It is the validity of this final order that is now attack, ed in this criminal revision petition.2. I have heard Sri Byra Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri V. Tarakaram who has appeared for the respondents and Sri Rego Advocate, for the State Public Prosecutor.3. The conclusion which has been reached by the learned Magistrate in his final order to the effect that as on the date on which the preliminary order had been made, the members of the first party were in possession at land to which the dispute petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›