Karnataka Court August 1969 Judgments
Lakshminarayana Vs. Saraswati and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-25-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant165; AIR1970Mys165; (1970)1MysLJ128
1. This appeal is by defendant 6 which arises out of a suit brought by two plaintiffs for a partition of the property which belonged to a Hindu joint family which was composed of defendant 1 and defendants 3 to 6. Defendant 1 is the father and defendants 3 to 6 are his sons. The two plaintiffs and defendant 2 are his daughters. There was a partition on April 19, 1960 between the members of the family in which defendant 6 took his fifth share and the other members of the family remained joint. It is because of that partition that the two plaintiffs claimed that they were also entitled to demand a partition in the family properties under Section 8 of the Hindu Law Women's Rights Act (Mysore Act 10 of 1933) which will be referred to as the Act. 2. The Munsiff dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs could not demand a partition because their father was alive. But the Civil Judge allowed the appeal and gave the plaintiffs the decree which they wanted for partition and delivery ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. N. Subramanya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Kant164; AIR1970Mys164
1. This is an appeal preferred by defendant 3 from a decree for partition which was made by the CivilJudge in appeal. The material facts are these; Defendants 1 and 3 were brothers and belonged to a Hindu joint family. When defendant 1 was adjudged an in-solvent under the provisions of the Insolvency Act. his right title and interest in his share of the family properties was sold by the Official Receiver on April I, 1950 and that sale was confirmed. The purchaser at that sale was the plaintiff's father in whose favour a sale deed was executed by the Official Receiver on July 12, 1950.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was next brought on July 12. 1962 for delivery of possession to the plaintiff of the fifth share which had been purchased by his father. The plaintiff became entitled to a fifth share since the defendants' other brothers are not parties to this litigation.3. The Civil Judge negatived the contention that the suit was barred by limitation and the plea of limitation...
Tag this Judgment!K.B. Jinaraja Hegde and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore by Chief Secretar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Kant12; AIR1971Mys12; (1970)2MysLJ224
Tukol, J. 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the validity of whole or part of the Mysore Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order 1966 issued by the State of Mysore in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1953 (centrol Act 10 of 1955) read with the orders relevant thereto. The order (hereinafter called the Levy Order) came into force on 21st October, 1966. Some of the petitioners have prayed for quashing the notice of demand issued against them by the Enforcement Officer of the concerned Taluk. The petitioners are all from the different taluks of South Kanara and North Kanara Districts.2. In spite of the various grounds mentioned in the different writ petitions, the learned advocate for the petitioners have addressed their arguments only on 3 points:1. Whether the purchase price fixed under the Order as per Schedule II is valid? 2. What is the nature of obligation requiring the paddy grower to furnish information under Clause 4 o...
Tag this Judgment!Madivalappa and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1969
Reported in: [1970]77ITR235(KAR); [1970]77ITR235(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act.' The question of law referred to this court reads :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the assesses firm correctly assessed to tax for the assessment year 1963-64 in the status of an unregistered firm ?'2. In our opinion, the question of law that arises out of the order of the Tribunal is :'Whether the registration of the firm granted to the assessee for the assessment year 1962-63 shall have effect for the assessment year 1963-64 under sub-section (7) of section 184 of the Act ?'3. We have recast the question of law accordingly, as mentioned above.4. The matter arises in this way. The assessee is a partnership firm which was granted registration for the assessment year 1962-63. For the assessment year 1963-64, the Income-tax officer called upon the assessee by a notice under section 139(2) served on June 13, 1963, to file a return of its in...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Last Will and Testament of Eunice Annette Johnson Vs. Tadimalla ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1969
Reported in: ILR1969KAR620
ORDER1. In this petition proposed to be fifed, the prayer is for grant of probate in respect of the Will of one Eunice Anntee Johnson. The application is by a single person, Mr. Tadimatla Subbarao, one of the partners of the firm of Solicitors and Advocates by name King and Partridge. The terms of appointment in the Will are, 'I appoint the person who shall be the partners of the firm of M/s. King and Partridge, Solicitors, Madras, Bangalore and Ootacamand at the time of my death (hereinafter called 'my Trustees') to be the executors and trustees of this my Will'. On scrutinising the papers, the Registrar of this Court raised an objection or suggestion whether it was not necessary for all the persons answering the description contained in the above appointment to make a joint prayer for grant of probate in favour of all of them. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has sought to answer the same by relying on the provisions of Section 224 of the Indian Succession Act. 2. So ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›