Karnataka Court July 1969 Judgments
Mallappa Gurulingappa Kameri Vs. Neelawwa Malappa Kameri
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant59; AIR1970Mys59; (1969)2MysLJ332
1. The appellant is the husband who presented a rolled up application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 and for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent who was accused of desertion is his second wife. 2. The Civil Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the appellant who had another wife living could not plead desertion. 3. The essence of desertion is the abandonment of one spouse by the other for no good cause, and so, there can be no desertion by a wife who lives separately from her husband if in law she is entitled to do so. 4. When respondent 2 began to live separately from her husband the appellant's first wife was ah've, and, is still living. So, she became entitled to live separately from her husband without impairing her right to claim maintenance from him under Section 18(2)(d) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 which reads: '18. Maintenance of Wife:-- (1) ..... (2) A Hindu wife shall be e...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Sheriff Vs. the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant204; AIR1970Mys204; (1969)2MysLJ325
Somnath Iyer, J.1. In respect ol the route between Kibbanhalli and Kibbanahalli in the District of Tumkur an application was presented by respondent No. 4 to the Regional Transport Authority of Tumkur on May 10, 1968 for the grant of a permit to operate his stage carriage. That application was published in the Gazette under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which will be referred to as the Act On June 13, 1968, and May 27 1968, was the date within which representation could be made in opposition to the application. The first date of hearing was August 16, 1968, and, January 27, 1969 was the date on which the regional transport authority disposed of the application and in the meanwhile representations had been produced by the petitioner before us and the others.2. On that day of hearing, the regional transport authority decided to grant the permit to respondent 4 and from that decision there were appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by the petitioner and two others. Whe...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeswara Lorry Service Vs. Muniappa (P.) and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1969
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ546Kant; (1969)2MysLJ216
ORDER1. The respondent made an application under S. 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, to the Second City Magistrate, Bangalore. Part of the claim related to a period more than twelve months anterior to the date of application. Discovering later that the paid part of the claim would be barred by limitation, he made an application for condonation of delay invoking the powers of the Magistrate under proviso 2 appended to S. 15(2) of the Act. The Magistrate dismissed that application. 2. The respondent, first preferred Civil Revision Petition No. 1181 of 1966 to this Court. An objection as to its maintainability raised by the Registrar was upheld by Govinda Bhat, J., who made the following order : 'The order against which the above revision has been preferred in made under Sub-section (2) of S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. Against such an order, an appeal is provided under S. 17 of the said Act. The petitioner should exhaust his remedies provided under the Act before he approaches this...
Tag this Judgment!Raghavendra Kalmeshwar Kulkarni and anr. Vs. Siwaya Basya Hiremath and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant108; AIR1970Mys108; (1969)2MysLJ250
1. The appellants who are the decree-holders sued out execution of the decree ultimately confirmed in S. A. No. 275/1965 on 24-2-1966. For delivery of possession of the property they made an application in L. C. D. No. 140/1966 on the file of the First Additional Munsiff, Hubli and obtained possession of the property on 17-4-1966. On 1-6-1966, the decree-holders filed a memo marked Ex. 14 acknowledging delivery of possession of the properties and seeking suitable orders. On the same day, the judgment-debtors made an application marked Ex. 15 opposing the memo filed by the decree-holders, stating that the possession of the property was handed over to them. The judgment-debtors further submitted that the purported delivery of possession on 17-4-1966 was not legal and that the same is not binding on the judgment-debtors and that they may be given an opportunity to file objections in this regard. The learned Munsiff passed an order on Exhibit 14 in the following terms: 'possession deliverd...
Tag this Judgment!Vengaiah Setty Vs. Transport Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-1969
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3327
ORDERChandrasekhar, J.1. The short question that arises for determination in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. HD 128(2) MVA dated 28th March 1959 issued by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (l) of Section 16 of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (Mysore Act 35 of 1957).2. The petitioner was a transferee of a permit to operate a stage carriage on an inter- State route between Thambadapalli (in Andhra Pradesh) and Chintamani (in Mysore State). He was operating a transport vehicle under a permit which had been granted by the Transport Authorities of Andhra Pradesh and had been countersigned by the Transport Authorities in Mysore State. After the expiry of the period for which such countersignature had been granted, an application was made to the Regional Transport Authority, Kolar, for renewal of the countersignature. It would appear that t...
Tag this Judgment!Ligory Minezes and ors. Vs. J.C. Lobo
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant76; AIR1970Mys76; (1969)2MysLJ92
1. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge of Mangalore, S.K. in Appeal Suit No. 33 of 1965 modifying the decree made by the Munsiff of Mangalore in O.S. 131 of 1962. The defendant has filed cross-objections questioning the correctness of the decree made by the lower court.2. The plaintiff and the defendant are owners of neighbouring properties. The plaintiff in the first instance sought for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from putting up any building without keeping an open space or at least 4 feet at the northern edge of his plot; and from disturbing or interfering with the right of the plaintiff to enjoy sufficient quantity of light and air through the windows of his building opening towards the defendant's premises.3. Later, as the defendant had put up the structure on his premises, the plaintiff was permitted to amend the plaint by praying for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove any superstruc...
Tag this Judgment!D. Padmaraja Setty and ors. Vs. Gyanachandrappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant87; AIR1970Mys87; ILR1969KAR730
ORDER1. The property In suit, out ofwhich these Revision Petitions arise, belonged to two brothers Dasarath and Tukkappa. The former died first. After the death of Tukappa also, leaving only his widow Padmavathamma, one of the sons of Padmavathamma filed a suit for partition and delivery to him of a half share in the property. Padmavathamma had brought up her brother's daughter Janawa as her foster daughter.2. During the pendency of the suit, Padmavathamma died. Both Padmavathamma as well as her foster daughterJanawa were murdered on the game night.3. The plaintiff filed I. A. No. VI forbringing on record his brothers because himself and his said brothers were the nearest intestate heirs of Padmavathamma under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. Janawa's parents filed I. A. No. VII to come on record as legal representatives of deceased Padmavathamma, on the ground that Padmavathamma had left a registered will bequeathing all her estate in favour of Jannavva and that after the death...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›