Karnataka Court November 1970 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.
Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango Vs. Narayan Devji Kango and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant174; AIR1971Mys174; (1971)1MysLJ154
E.S. Venkataramiah, J. 1. This execution Second Appeal arises out of an order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bijapur, in Special Darakhast No. 36 of 1958 in which the appellant sued out execution of the decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 164 of 1952 on the file of the Supreme Court. 2. The facts of the case are briefly these: The appellant instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of certain items of property against the respondents on the basis that he had been adopted to one Krishnarao by his widow Rukminibai. He filed the suit in forma pauperis. The main contention of the defendants in that suit was one relating to the factum and validity of adoption and the effect of the said adoption on the family properties. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court which inter alia ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to a half share 'in the open site occupied by the front house covering C. T. S. Nos. 639 and 640' and that he was entitled to recover half price of ...
C. Venkatiah and anr. Vs. the State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant177; AIR1971Mys177; (1971)1MysLJ103
A. Narayana Pai, C.J. 1. These are unnecessary interlocutory applications which would not have been filed but for the fact that there is some apprehension in the mind of Mr. Javali's clients that an order of dismissal made by this court in the said two writ petitions as withdrawn is likely to be interpreted to their prejudice. 2. The question involved in the writ petitions was one of a right to promotion on the basis of certain rules or amendment to the rules. A certain order was made in favour of the petitioners. Thereupon two persons filed writ petitions for recalling the previous order on the ground that the same has been made in their absence in spite of the fact that they were vitally interested in the question of promotion debated in the writ petitions. Their contention was accepted by this court. The previous orders were recalled and the writ petitions revived for fresh hearing after impleading new parties. While doing so, the court made an observation which is clarificatory in ...
Danagouda Ningangouda Vs. Basappa Fakeerappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant78; AIR1971Mys78
Narayana Pai, C.J.1. The petitioner, who was a successful candidate at an election to the Taluk Development Board of Kushtagi, was a respondent in an election petition questioning or challenging his election. The petition was presented to the Munsiff at Kustagi under Section 106 of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959. The Munsiff dismissed the petition for default of appearance of the election petitioner on the 14th of August, 1969. On the 19th of the same month an application was made for restoration of the petition. It was restored by an order of the Munsiff dated the 2nd day of September, 1969, reading as follows:--'Heard Advocates on both sides. For the reasons stated in the affidavit, in the interest of justice the order of dismissal is hereby set aside on payment of costs to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 of Rs. 20/- by petitioner in this case.' Respondent 4 is the present petitioner, The record also shows that respondents 1 and 2 (in the election petition) has no ...
Linga Reddy Vs. Ramachandrappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant194; AIR1971Mys194; (1971)1MysLJ159
V.S. Malimath, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Gulbarga in R. C. A. No. 83/4 of 1967 reversing the decree passed by the Principal Munsif, Gulbarga, in Suit No. 129/1 of 1963. The plaintiff is a Hindu minor represented by his father and natural guardian Mallanna. The suit is one for specific performance of the contract to sell executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on the 12th of October, 1962, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the suit lands bearing Suit Nos. 90 and 91. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit lands belonged to the defendant. The father and natural guardian of the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant to purchase the two suit lands for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/-. The said agreement is produced in this case as Ex. P. 1. The entire consideration according to the plaintiff, was paid on the date of the agreement and the de...
Ashwath Rao and ors. Vs. Sushilabai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant141; AIR1971Mys141; (1970)2MysLJ574
ORDERB. Venkataswami, J.1. This petition arises in the following way. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 2/1 of 1965 on the file of the Civil Judge, Raichur, filed the suit against one Kattamma, for partition and possession of properties left behind by her husband and father-in-law. It is alleged that she and Kattamma alone were entitled to succeed to the said properties.The defendant Kattamma died on 20-5-1968 leaving behind her the plain-tiff as the sole heir, according to the plaintiff. Ordinarily, the suit abates in such circumstances. But on 17-8-68 an application, purporting to be under R. 17 of Order VI read with Rule 7 of Order VII and Rule 3 of Order I, Civil P. C. was filed by the plaintiff to bring the proposed legal representatives on record. The ground on which they are sought to be brought on record is that they were in possession of the suit properties as intermeddlers, thus falling within the definition of 'legal representative' under Section 2(11) of the Civil P. C.2. The prop...
Bhujanga Hegde and anr. Vs. Sakarama Hegde and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant208; AIR1971Mys208; (1971)1MysLJ81
ORDERB. Venataswami, J. 1. This petition under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code has been Preferred by defendants 3 and 4, in Original Suit No. 6 of 1966, on the file of the Civil Judge, at Udipi. It is directed against an order made in I. A. No. 467 of 1967 in the said suit. The said I. A. had been preferred by the 13th defendant in the suit for impleading her brother as a supplemental defendant and being arrayed as 14th defendant in the said suit. The Civil Judge allowed the application. 2. The Original suit in question is one filed by a member of a 'Kavaru' of an Aliyasanthana family against the other members of that 'Kavaru' for partition and separate possession of the properties belonging to them. In the course of the proceedings in the suit the present proposed supplemental defendant, Sakarama Hegde, applied for being impleaded as a party to the suit in R. I. A. 425/66. His request was refused. During the hearing of the said I. A. it would appear that both the parties to the suit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›