Karnataka Court September 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.
Mahadev Malhar Lad Vs. Mohamadrasul Hatelsaheb Shaik
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant139; AIR1971Mys139; (1970)2MysLJ598
K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, J.1. The appellant was the defendant in the trial court. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed against the appellant and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed. Against the concurrent decrees of the courts below, the appellant (defendant) has preferred this second appeal.2. The Respondent filed the suit for the recovery of possession of an open site which lies between the properties owned by 2 parties, each party asserting his title to the property. The defendant in addition to asserting his title contended that he had perfected his title by adverse possession and that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property at any time within 12 years prior to the institution of the suit. On the question of title and measurements of the open site, the courts below have found in favour of the plaintiff and these findings are not disputed. On the merits it is only with regard to the 4th and 5th issues relating to the possession of the plaintiff within 12 ...
Ningappa and anr. Vs. Vithappa Chandramappa Kadatagar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant247; AIR1971Mys247; (1970)2MysLJ566
K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, J.1.The plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 226 of 1963 are the appellants In this second appeal. The contesting respondents are defendants 2. 4 and 6. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of 2/3 share of the appellants in the suit properties. They challenge the alienations effected bv their father who was impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the original suit under Exhi-bits. 26, 27, 28 and 29 in favour of the 2nd defendant's father, 4th defendant and 6th defendant. It may further be mentioned that Exhibits 26 and 27 are in favour of the 4th defendant It is undisputed that defendant 1 and the plaintiff are members of an undivided joint Hindu family and that the suit properties are the ancestral properties. The plaintiffs challenge the binding character of the aforesaid alienations in so far as they are concerned on the ground that those alienations are not supported by legal necessity. They also impeached the alienations on the ground that they were ...
Murigappa Karabasappa Mekki and anr. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1970
Reported in: (1971)IILLJ139Kant; (1970)2MysLJ462
ORDER1. There were two accused persons in C.C. No. 171 of 1969 on the file of the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, First Class Laxmeshwar. An application dated 16-1-1970 filed by them was dismissed by the Munsiff Magistrate by his order dated 10-3-1970. It is against that order that both the accused have come up here in this revision petition, praying that the entire proceedings in C.C. 171 of 1969 be quashed and the petitioners be acquitted. 2. The Labour Inspector, II Circle, Gadag, filed the complaint against the accused on 15-3-1969. It was prosecuted by the State. The first accused is described as the Chairman, Doddapramanad Prathmik Pattin Vyavasaya Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Laxmeshwar, and the second accused is the Secretary of that Society (hereinafter called the Society). In the complaint the brief facts of the case are given as blow by the Labour Inspector : '1. During my visit to the abovesaid Establishment on 26-12-1968 at 4-10 p.m. It is found that the accused Sl. Nos. 1 and...
Govinda and ors. Vs. Mary Fernandes and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant75; AIR1971Mys75; (1970)2MysLJ466
ORDER1. Malimath, J. has referred this Civil Revision Petition for a decision by a Division Bench as he was of the view that the view taken by Chandrashekhar, J. and Sadananda Swamy, J. in C. R. P. No. 2032 of 1969 and C. R. P. No. 182 of 1968. respectively that a revision petition does not He to this Court against an interlocutory order passed by the Land Tribunal under the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.) was not in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court, and hence, that view required to be reconsidered by a Division Bench.2. The facts which have given rise to this revision petition, briefly stated, are these:Marry Fernandes and Theresa Fernandes two landladies filed an application in R. L. C. No. 83 of 1968 on the file of the Land Tribunal at Coondapur against their tenants-respondents therein for resumption of certain lands under Section 14 of the Act. Sometime later, the land ladies filed an application under Order VI, Rul...
D. Shamanna Vs. D. Gangappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant112; AIR1971Mys112; (1970)2MysLJ478
1. This appeal arises from a decree and Judgment dated 17-2-1966 made in R. A. No. 122 of 1965 by which the learned District Judge, Tumkur, has confirmed the decision of the Second Addl. Munsiff, Tumkur, in O. S. No. 864 of 1960.2. The suit out of which the above appeal arises was instituted by the respondent for a declaration and injunction and alternatively for possession, inter alia contending that he is the owner of the schedule property and that the defendant has no manner of right, title or interest in it. The main contention of the defendant was that the dispute in respect of the suit property with the consent of the plaintiff was referred to a group of panchayatdars who have given their decision that the suit schedule property shall belong to the defendant and that, that decision was assented to by the plaintiff. It was further contended that the reference and decision being admittedly after the filing of the suit, must be held to be binding on the plaintiff.3. Both the courts ...
D.S. Sriramiah Setty Vs. Smt. D. Kanthamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant148; AIR1971Mys148; (1970)2MysLJ516
D.M. Chandrashekhar, J.1. This appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, (hereinafter called the Act) arises out of proceedings for grant of letters of administration with the will annexed.2. The appellant herein filed an application under Section 276 of the Act, for grant of letters of administration with the Will annexed, to the estate of one Rangamma who is stated to have died on 26-12-1967 in Siddlagatta town. He claimed to be the sole legatee under the Will alleged to have been executed by Rangamma on 13-3-1966.3. The respondent herein lodged a caveat under Section 284 of the Act, together with an affidavit in which she explained her relationship with the testatrix, Rangamma.4. The appellant made an application purporting to be under Order 5, Rule 6 read with Sections 141 and 151 Civil P. C., calling upon the caveatrix to disclose specifically the nature of the interest she claims in the estate of the testatrix, Rangamma, so that he (the appellant) might file hi...
Sidramappa and ors. Vs. Mahadevi Bai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-23-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant145; AIR1971Mys145; (1971)1MysLJ50
Honniah, J.1. These three appeals arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiff Mahadevi against the defendants Sidraraappa and Chandrashekhar, brothers of her husband for partition and separate possession of the joint family properties or in the alternative for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month for 12 years prior to the suit and at the same rate in the future. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals may be briefly stated as follows:--Plaintiff's husband Shivasharnappa and the defendants are brothers- Shivasharanappa died in June. 1944 leaving behind the plaintiff and his brothers, the defendants. After his death the defendants maintained the plaintiff paying Rs. 75/- per month for about eighteen months. Thereafter it appears the plaintiff left the family house and went and settled at Bijapur. She filed a suit for partition of the family properties in the court of the Civil Judge, Sholapur, in O. S. No. 54 of 1948 claiming therein one-third share. The t...
B. Narasimha Pai Vs. Damodar Bhat and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1970
Reported in: [1971(22)FLR211]; (1971)ILLJ452Kant
Gopivallabha Iyengar, J.1. The petitioner being an employee of the first respondent concern, made an application under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 praying that the amount due to him may be determined and consequential orders passed. In the annexure attached to his application, he says that he was employed on a monthly salary of Rs. 55 and was being paid batta at Rs. 2-50 ps. per day. The minimum wages with reference to his employment as a Checking Inspector was fixed in July 1962 at Rs. 83 per month; Rs. 48 being basic wages and Rs. 35 being the dearness allowance. The petitioner's complaint is that he was not paid the full minimum wages, but was paid less Rs. 28 per month. In this regard he claims a sum of Rs. 854. Subsequent to February, 1965, the first respondent is alleged to have deducted a sum of Rs. 28 per month from his daily batta and therefore he claims the payments of the same, and this amounts to Rs. 853 upto the date of petition. In all, he claims a sum ...
The State Bank of Travancore by Manager, C.N.B. Unit, Ernakulam, Keral ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant113; AIR1971Mys113; (1971)1MysLJ4
Honniah, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether a decree obtained by the Decree-holder (Appellant) the State Bank of Travancore, has become barred by limitation. 2. For the purpose of resolving this question between the parties some facts relevant may be stated. The State Bank of Travancore obtained a decree against M. Ramu, the Respondent, in O. S. 96 of 1951 before the District Court, Trichur, for Rs. 37,077/50, with costs and current interest the date of the decree being 18-1-1952. The Decree-holder filed several execution petitions from 1953 upto 1963 and all of them were dismissed for one reason or the other. The last of the Execution Petitions was filed on 1-6-1964 for recovery of the decretal amount together with costs and current interest. This application was beyond 12 years from the date of the decree. The Judgment-debtor inter alia contended that the said petition was not maintainable and was barred by time. The previous execution petition, viz., Ex. 49 of 1962 before t...
T.S. Srinivasa Gowda Vs. Siddiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Kant144; AIR1971Mys144; (1970)2MysLJ547
A. Narayana Pai, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal against the decree of the Civil Judge, Mysore on appeal, dismissing his suit which had been decreed by the Munsiff.2. The plaint stated a case of a loan of Rs. 1.000/- advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant in the 'morning of 1st April, 1957 followed by the execution of a promissory note by the defendant at about 1 P. M. in the afternoon of the same day. The promissory note was insufficiently stamped. But there was at the foot of the paper containing the text of the promissory note, a receipt for consideration amount signed by the defendant and attested by two witnesses, and there was also on the back of the paper an endorsement of a payment of Rs. 55 described as interest due in respect of the promissory note.3. In dismissing the suit, the Civil Judge recorded a definite finding of fact that the plaintiff's case of a loan advanced in the morning and promissory note executed in the afternoon cannot be believed. He takes the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »