Karnataka Court July 1969 Judgments
Krishnaraj Urs Vs. the Director of Treasuries in Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Kant108; AIR1971Mys108
Tukol, J.1. The main relief which the petitioner has prayed for in this writ petition is to fix his seniority above that of respondents 3, 4 and 5 and issue a direction to make necessary corrections in the seniority list of Deputy Account^ ants (Exhibit L.).2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined service as First Division Clerk on 10-3-1953 in the Treasury Branch of the Revenue Department of the former State of Mysore. When the former State of Mysore created separate Treasury cadre in 1954 the services of the petitioner stood transferred to the Treasury cadre with effect from 1-1-1954. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 are officers who were working in the Revenue Department but under the Treasuries in the South Kanara District of the Madras area which has come into the New State of Mysore under the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act. The Government of the New State of Mysore, took a decision on 25th May, 1961 to constitute a new Treasury cadre in the interest of efficiency of Tre...
Tag this Judgment!Neelawwa Kom Annappa Enape and anr. Vs. Chinnawwa Maruti Enape
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant138; AIR1970Mys138; (1969)2MysLJ334
1. This is a defendants' appeal which arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of a half share in the suit property. Plaintiff and defendant 1 are sisters and defendant 2 is the husband of defendant 1. The case for the plaintiff was that she became entitled to a half share in the suit property under the gift deed Exhibit 43 executed by her father in her favour and in favour of the defendant 1. The suit was resisted both on the ground that the gift was not acted upon and also on the ground that since the condition subject to which it was made was not fulfilled it was revoked. There was also a plea of adverse possession and relinquishment. 2. The important questions which arose from those pleadings were presented by as many as seven issues which were formulated by the court of first instance. The first issue covered the question whether the gift deed did not come into operation; the second related to the question whether the plaintiff relinquish...
Tag this Judgment!Multanmal Chempalal Vs. C.P. Shah and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant106; AIR1970Mys106; (1969)2MysLJ499
1. The appellant is the plaintiff and his suit was for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,100 from the defendant from whom he agreed to purchase some quantity of cloth pieces for a sum of Rs. 1,449-12-3 towards which the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs. 50. The goods were despatched from Bombay to Bellary in a truck belonging to a public carrier on March 7, 1957, but the balance of the price payable by the plaintiff was paid only in May through a bank draft. Until then, there was a controversy with respect to a small sum of money which represented bank charges, the payment of which was insisted upon by the defendant but was refused by the plaintiff. Eventually the plaintiff paid that amount only in may nearly two months after the goods had been despatched through the public carrier. The defendant then on May 20, 1957 forwarded the necessary receipt on the presentation of which the plaintiff could collect the goods from the carrier, but the plaintiff could not obtain delivery of those goods...
Tag this Judgment!S.H. Kelkar and ors. Vs. Mandakini Bai and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant163; AIR1970Mys163; ILR1969KAR819; (1969)2MysLJ228
ORDER1. The suit was originally sought to be instituted in forma pauperis with five prayers. On refusal of leave to do so, the plaintiff struck off four reliefs from the plaint, paid Court fee on the fifth relief and the suit was registered accordingly. Subsequently when she was in possession of sufficient funds to pay the court-fee in respect of the omitted reliefs also, she applied for amendment fay way of reinstatement of the originally given up reliefs. The Civil Judge has granted the permission. Hence this Revision Petition by the contesting defendants 1 to 3.2. Although the reliefs were struck off, the original averments in the plaint were left intact. Hence the opinion of the Civil Judge that the reliefs now sought to be reinstated flowed from or depended upon the averments already in the plaint and that therefore, no surprise or serious prejudice can be postulated, is not open to any serious criticism.3. The only substantial question for consideration is whether the striking ou...
Tag this Judgment!Devish Vs. M.K. Subbiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant249; AIR1970Mys249
A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. The source of this second appeal is a suit brought by a certain Subbiah for a declaration that he is the owner of a lane and open space to the west of this house and for an injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing his possession. Subbiah died during the pendency of the appeal in the lower appellate Court and hiswife and children were brought on the record as his legal representatives. 2. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that the open space and the lane belonged to him and not to Subbiah. But both the Courts found that the plaintiff's case was true, but that the defendant had a right of way over the lane for the limited purpose of repairing his eastern wall. So they gave the plaintiff the decree which he wanted subject to the declaration as to the defendant's right of way. 3. So this appeal by the defendant in which the restricted challenge is to the decrees of the Courts below in so far as they relate to the open space EFGH. 4. Mr. Dores...
Tag this Judgment!Byrappa (Decd.) by Lrs. Muni Sanjeevamma and ors. Vs. S. Mani and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant152; AIR1970Mys152; (1969)2MysLJ465
1. On March 19, 1959 defendant 4 Anjanappa sold the suit properties to a certain Byrappa for a sum of Rs. 5,000. It is on the basis of this sale deed that Byrappa who is now dead brought a suit for declaration that he was the owner of the property and for an injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing his possession. It was not disputed in the pleadings that as stated by the plaintiff in his plaint defendant 4, the vendor, continued to be in possession of the suit property as the tenant of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had presented an application for eviction under the provisions of the Mysore Rent Control Act on the ground that defendant 4 had become a defaulter in the payment of rent. So the undisputed fact was that the plaintiff was in possession of the property through his tenant, defendant 4, when the suit was instituted, and if he establishes title to the suit property ha could get the injunction along with the declaration sought by him. If the injunction sought is g...
Tag this Judgment!Achamma Thomas Vs. E. R. Fairman
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant77; AIR1970Mys77; (1969)2MysLJ179
ORDER1. The petitioner made an application for eviction of the respondent-tenant before the learned Munsiff, Civil Station, Bangalore, on the ground that she required the premises for her own occupation. After terminating the tenancy by issuing notice, she filed the application for eviction as the respondent-tenant refused to comply with the demand. The respondent contended that the petitioner's claim was neither reasonable nor Dona fide and greater hardship would be caused to him by passing a decree for eviction than by refusing to pass it. Healso contended that there was no valid notice terminating his tenancy and therefore the petitioner has no right to seek his eviction from the premises.2. The trial court found in favour of the petitioner on all issues including the question of notice which is the only one on which the arguments have been addressed in this court. The trial court held that the registered notice issued by the petitioner to the respondent has been returned undelivere...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ayyappan and anr. Vs. Moktar Singh and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant67; AIR1970Mys67; ILR1969KAR793; (1969)2MysLJ264
ORDER1. This is a revision petition referred to us for disposal under Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961 by A. Narayana Pai J. It is necessary to state the relevant facts leading to the reference. The petitioners Ayyappan and Katayani Amma are the parents of a child which died as a result of an accident caused by a motor vehicle at Davangere on 24-7-1963. They filed the suit O. S. 9/65 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Chitradurga, on 24-4-1965 against the owner of the vehicle, first defendant, and the Insurance Company which had insured the motor vehicle, defen-dant-2, for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- being the loss of future pecuniary benefit and Rs. 5,000/- towards the expectation of life, mental agony and loss of society.2. The State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, under a Notification No. H. D. 228 MVA 57 dated 28th June, 1963 and published in the Mysore Gazette on the same day, constituted the Distr...
Tag this Judgment!Mallanna and ors. Vs. Eramma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant84; AIR1970Mys84; (1969)2MysLJ222
1. The appellants are the defendants who were sued by the plaintiffs for possession and mesne profits with respect to a land which had been mortgaged by a certain Hanumavva who was the mother-in-law of the first plaintiff and the grand-mother of others. The case of the plaintiffs was that the mortgage was a self redeeming mortgage, and that the liability under the mortgage deed had come to an end after the expiry of the stipulated period. The defendants resisted the suit on more than one ground, but the Court of first instance overruled their defence and made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for possession and mesne profits at Rs. 200 a year.2. From that decree there was an appeal by the defendants and a cross-objection by the plaintiffs with respect to mesne profits awarded which, according to the plaintiffs, were not sufficiently adequate. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants and allowed the cross-objection and enhanced the mesne profits to a...
Tag this Judgment!M. Siddalingappa Vs. T. Nataraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant154; AIR1970Mys154; ILR1969KAR776
ORDER1. The petitioner who is a Dry Cleaner was sued by the respondent for damages in respect of damage caused to two silk sarees entrusted for dry cleaning. The suit has been decreed by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.2. The only point of law raised is that the lower Court was wrong in not giving effect to the following clause of the contract printed on the back of the receipt given by the petitioner on the ground that it is opposed to public policy;'All articles for cleaning and dyeing are accepted on conditions that the company shall incur no liability in respect of any damage which may occur and for delay or in the event of loss for which the company may accept the liabilitywhich shall in no case exceed eight times the cleaning charges.'The question whether any public policy is involved or not does not in my opinion, arise. The petitioner is, undoubtedly, a bailee in respect of the sarees given to him and there is a minimum duty of care Imposed upon all bailees under Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »