Karnataka Court October 1971 Judgments
Joseph D'Souza Vs. the State of Mysore and Ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant261; AIR1972Mys261; 1974CriLJ212; ILR1973KAR517; (1973)1MysLJ397
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is a revision petition under Section 50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act. 1961, shortly called the Act, preferred by the landlord against the order made by the First Addl. District Judge. Bangalore, in H. R. C. A. No. 34 of 1970 by which he reversed the order in H. R. C 1083 of 1967 made by the! Principal First Munsiff, Bangalore.2. The first respondent is the State of Mysore in whose favour the premises in question were leased by the father of the petitioner in the year 1954, It was a lease for eight years, specifically for running toddy and arrack shops therein. The premises originally was a vacant plot. After the lease, sheds appear to have been constructed for the purpose of running the toddy and arrack shops. After the death of the original lessor, his widow, two sons and a daughter became entitled to the premises. The petitioner who is one of the sons and also the power of attorney holder of the remaining children of the deceased lessor, filed a...
Tag this Judgment!Hanamangouda Venkanagouda Vs. Hanamanagouda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant286; AIR1972Mys286
Chandrasekhar, J.1. This Second Appeal has come up before us on a reference made under the proviso to Section 6 of the Mysore High Court Act. 1961. 2. The principal question that arises in this appeal is whether a female Hindu who was in possession of any property in lieu of her maintenance under an instrument or settlement before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), becomes the full owner of such property under Section 14 of the Act. 3. The suit is for declaration of the plaintiffs' title to the suit land for restraining defendant 1 from alienating it in favour of defendant 2. 4. It is common ground that plaintiff 1's father, defendant 1's husband and a plaintiff 2's father were brothers and that defendant 1's husband died earlier to the other two. 5. Both the courts below have held that defendant 1 had executed in the year 1335 Fasli the Ekararnama. Exhibit P-1, in favour of plaintiff 1 and the father of plaintiff 2. It is stated th...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Jois Vs. Alamelamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant178; AIR1972Mys178
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The defendant in original Suit No. 637 of 1964 on the file of the First Munsiff Mysore, is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiffs who are two in number instituted the above suit original in the court of the Subordinate Judge. Mysore in 1963. The suit was thereafter transferred to the file of the First MunsifE. Mysore, by virtue of the provisions of the Mysore Civil Courts Act, 1964. The first plaintiff executed a usufructuary mortgage deed in favour of the defendant on 25-9-1951 for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- offering the plaint schedule house as security therefor. Later on he sold the house in favour of plaintiff 2. Both the plaintiffs instituted the above suit for redemption of the above mortgage. It is not disputed, that under the mortgage deed only a sum of Rs. 283/-was paid in cash to plaintiff 1. The balance of the amount was allowed to be retained by the mortgagee for the purpose of discharging certain earlier debts which plaintiff 1 had incurred ...
Tag this Judgment!T.P. Boraiah and anr. Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant181; AIR1972Mys181; (1972)1MysLJ172
Narayana Pai, C.J. 1. Both these writ petitions raise the same questions and a detailed consideration of one will dispose of both the writ petitions. We take up writ petition No. 2075 of 1971. The petitioner is an operator of stage carriage services. He operates his vehicles on contract carriage permits also.2. He impugns the legality of a notice dated the 6th July 1971 issued to him by the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority Mysore, calling uponhim to produce his permits for the purpose of adding thereto an additional condition to the following effect.'A transport vehicle shall not be used on any public road unless taxes due in respect of the vehicle have been paid in accordance with the provisions of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, the Mysore Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Act. 1961 and the rules and notifications issued thereunder'.3. The proposed additional condition is a copy of Clause (i) of Rule 106 of theMysore Motor Vehicles Rules. 19...
Tag this Judgment!Basawwa and ors. Vs. Ningappa Gopalappa UppIn and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant183; AIR1972Mys183; (1972)1MysLJ149
Govinda Bhat, J. 1. One Mall-appa was the owner of certain lands which he gifted under a deed dated 25-9-1958 to one Ghoshappa, and Revappa (Petitioner No. 11). The donor died soon after the execution of the gift deed. Respondent No. 1 Ningappa Golappa Uppin claiming to be an heir of the aforesaid Mallappa brought C. S. No. 49 of 1959 in the court of the Civil Judge. Junior Divn. Bijapur for declaration that the gift deed executed by Mallappa was void, being in contravention of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. hereinafter called the Act. and for possession and other incidental reliefs. The donees were the defendants in the said suit. On the contentions raised by the parties, one of the issues raised was, whether the donees were agriculturists on the date of the gift deed in question. That issue was referred under Section 85-A of the Act to the Tahsildar. Sindagi for determination. The Tahsildar held that the donees were not agriculturists. Againstthis ...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Aithala and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant291; AIR1972Mys291; (1972)1MysLJ303
Malimath, J.1. The lands belonging to the petitioners in this batch of 15 writ petitions have been acquired for the Mangalore Harbour project. The common prayer made in these writ petitions to declare as void the first proviso to Section 3 (3) of the Land Acquisition (Mysore Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 (Mysore Act 10 of 1968) is not pressed. Hence, the same is not considered, reserving liberty to raise that contention, if necessary, in appropriate proceedings,2. In the first 8 writ petitions, there is a prayer for declaration that Sections 11, 16 and 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as in force in the State of Mysore, are void as offending the second proviso to Article 31-A of the Constitution. In the first two writ petitions, there is a further prayer for quashing the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act.3. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which is a Central Act, was amended and extended to the entire State of Mysore, by Mysore Act 17 of 1961 (hereinafter refer...
Tag this Judgment!Provident Fund Inspector, South Division Vs. A.J. Coelho
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-25-1971
Reported in: 1974CriLJ68
C. Honniah, J.1. In these appeals, the question that arises for consideration is whether the order passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Mangalore, acquitting the accused under Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code is, in ac-. cordance with the law.2. The Provident Fund Inspector, Mangalore South Division, filed two com-plaints out of which these two appeals arise, against A. J. Coelho accused under Section 14 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 and para. 76 (a) of the Scheme framed thereunder. The complaints were filed on 23-4-1971 and the court fixed the date of hearing on 24-6-1971 on which date the complainant was absent. Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that if the summons has been issued on complaint, and upon the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate, shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acqu...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Bhikaji Pauskar Vs. Mangesh M. Tergaonkar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant206; AIR1972Mys206
H.B. Datar, J.1. The short question that arises in this appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled to claim the benefit of the provisions of Order 41, Rule 6 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It arises in this way:Regular Suit No. 339 of 1965 was filed by the Respondents-Plaintiffs for recovery of certain sum of money against defendants 1 to 6. The trial Court by its judgment decreed the plaintiff's suit, directing that the Government shall pay a sum of Rs. 300/-as compensation to the plaintiffs with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of auction sale held on 22-12-1960 on Rs. 3,000/- with proportionate costs; defendant No. 6 also is jointly and severally liable to pay the suit claim to the plaintiff with costs. The correctness of this judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is pending adjudication in appeal before the court of the Civil Judge. An application for stay was made in that appeal, and though the stay was granted for the execution of the entire decr...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Tadimalla Subba Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant293; AIR1972Mys293; (1972)1MysLJ578
ORDERE.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The above petition has been filed for the grant of letters of administration with copies of the authenticated copies of the will and two codicils annexed thereto in respect of the estate of a certain John Hunter Alexander, hereinafter referred to as the 'testator'. The petitioner is Sri Tadimalla Subba Rao, who happens to be the holder of a Power of Attorney of the Executors and trustees entitled to administer the estate who are not residing in India. After the petition was received by the Court it was duly advertised in local daily. No objections have been received from any body for the issue of letters of administration as prayed for.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are these. The testator was ordinarily residing at Chickamagalur in the State of Mysore. He was a planter by profession owning properties in India and Scotland. While he was in Scotland, the testator made a will on November 16, 1955, and signed the same in the presence of two witnesses...
Tag this Judgment!C.G. Chandrashekar Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR187(KAR); [1973]87ITR187(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This is a revision petition by an assessee under section 55 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957. The assessment year is 1964-65. Under a will dated July 27, 1962, executed by P. Kunhi Kannan, a planter residing at Virajpet in Coorg District, the petitioner was appointed as trustee of the estate of the deceased. The beneficiaries under the will are all the sons of the testator. The petitioner contended before the assessing authority, as also before the Tribunal, that section 10(1)(a) of the Act is applicable to his case and the amount of tax has to be determined in the manner provided therein. The Tribunal rejected that contention on the ground that section 10(1)(a) does not apply where the trustee is appointed under a will. According to the Tribunal, a trustee appointed under a will is not one appointed by a 'written agreement' and therefore the benefit of section 10(1)(a) is not available to the petitioner. Section 10(1)(a) reads : 'In the case of agricu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »