Karnataka Court March 1971 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.
Harikisandas Gulabdas and Sons and anr. Vs. the State of Mysore and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-1971
Reported in: [1971]27STC434(Kar)
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, J. 1. These two petitions under article 226 of the Constitution raise common questions of law and will be dealt with together. We shall give the facts in W.P. No. 3088 of 1970 in order to understand the questions that fall to be decided. 2. The petitioner is an assessee under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). His case was that on 27th December, 1969, the Commercial Tax Officer-II, Intelligence Branch, who is the second respondent, along with his staff raided the business premises of the petitioner and took possession of some books of accounts and other documents by taking a signed statement from one of the partners of the petitioner-firm wherein it was made to appear that those books of accounts and other documents were voluntarily handed over to the second respondent for the purpose of verification and return. This was followed by a show cause notice dated 20th March, 1970, as per annexure B, from the second respondent, which ...
Laxman Vs. Ratnabai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant27; AIR1972Mys27; (1971)1MysLJ500
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed against the Order passed bv the Civil Judge on 8-9-1969 by which he directed that the suit will he reheard and disposed of by him. This arises in the following circumstances:--The Civil Judge of Bidar Sri Sanjeeva Gowda heard the arguments on 7-8-1969 and posted the case for judgment to 13-8-1969. In the meanwhile, he was suspended by the High Court as per the High Court order No. ROC. 3807/68 dated 8-8-1968. Thereafter he was compulsorily retired from service with effect from 24-11-1969. The judgment in the case, as already noted, was to be pronounced on 13-8-1969. The learned Civil Judge who was posted in place of Sri Sanjeeva Gowda was of the view that the judgment prepared during the period when his predecessor was under order of suspension cannot be a valid judgment nd he could not be compelled to pronounce that judgment. Accordingly, he passed the order directing re-hearing of the suit. It is against this order, the present revision petitio...
Eramma Vs. Parwatamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant121; AIR1972Mys121; (1971)2MysLJ179
M. Sadanandaswamy, J. 1. Appellant is the plaintiff. The respondent is the defendant. The suit was filed for possession of lands, survey Nos. 150, 151 and 158 of Modalapur. Manvi Taluk and for consequential reliefs. The plaintiff's case was that she was dispossessed by defendant and her husband in the year 1954 and the revenue records were manipulated in their favour. The defendant pleaded that there was an agreement of sale dated 27-6-1951 between the plaintiff and the defendant, that the plaintiff had thereunder agreed to sell the suit properties and two other properties for a sum of Rs. 6,000/-. that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid to the plaintiff, that the defendant got possession of the properties in pursuance to the said agreement and continues in possession as owner. The defendant relies on Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act to defeat the claim of the plaintiff in the suit 2. The trial court framed the following issues:--(i) Whether the agreement of sale dated 27-6-1951...
In Re Fakirappa Yellappa Tukkappanawar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1511
Sadananda Swamy, J.1. The appellant has been convicted for an offence Under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The victim of the crime is Shantavva, the eldest daughter of Shivappa Tukkappanavar, a resident of Aminbhavi Her mother is Gangavva. Gulappa and Ramappa are her brothers and Yellavva is her sister, Shantavva was aged about 22 years and was married about two years prior to her death which took place on 5-11 1958. Her husband is one Gangappa Shibargatti. She had returned from her husband's house since 5 or 6 months prior to her death and was residing with her parents at Aminbhavi. She was in illicit intimacy with one Basappa Petunavar of Aminbhave.2. Shivappa Tukkappanavar, his wife and children resided in a portion of the house situated in Basti Oni at Aminbhavi separately from Shivappa's father Tukkappa. In another portion of the same house, Yellappa with his wife Yamanavva and their sons Basappa and Fakirappa (the accused) resided. Yellappa is th...
V. Ramu Vs. M.V. Venkatappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant291; AIR1971Mys291; (1971)1MysLJ443
ORDERH.B. Datar, J.1. Petitioner in this case is the landlord who filed an application for eviction of the respondent under the provisions of Section 21(1) (a) and (f) of the Mysore House Rent Control Act before the Principal First Munsiff at Bangalore. In the said H. R. C Case No. 740 of 1965 there were two respondents D. R. Naidu and M. V. Venkatappa.2. In Para 2 of his petition before the Munsiff the petitioner has stated that 'first respondent on 1-2-63 executed a lease agreement in respect of the schedule premises for the purpose of his film business which he was carrying on in the name and style of Shamprasad Movies on a monthly rental of Rs. 200/-payable on the 1st of every calendar month as agreed to be the date of commencement of tenancy period and the rents were being paid on that date'. It was further alleged that the second respondent was a sub-tenant under the first and that the said tenancy was illegal. In para 5 of the petition the petitioner has clearly averred that 'th...
Smt. Peryakkal and ors. Vs. Smt. Dakshayini and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant259; AIR1971Mys259; (1971)1MysLJ428
1. Petitioners in this revision petition are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased tenant. An application for eviction has been filed by the landlord under the provisions of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, hereinafter called the Act As the tenant did not pay the agreed and undisputed rent that he was obliged to pay even during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, the landlord madean application under Section 29(1) and (4) of the Act. The said application has been granted and so the petitioners have approached this court challenging the legality and correctness of the said order. 2. Only two objections were raised in the Court below, namely, that the provisions of the 1961 Act are inapplicable to the premises in question and that an order under Section 29 of the Act should not be passed without first directing payment of arrears of rent and giving an opportunity to the petitioners to pay the same. It is these very objections that were negatived by the court below, ...
Shivappa Satyappa Mudakannavar Vs. Satyappa Yellappa Muttapagol and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant352; AIR1971Mys352; (1971)1MysLJ374
ORDERD.M. Chandrashekhar, J.1. What is the court-fee payable in a suit by a reversioner on the death of a Hindu Widow to set aside the alienation by her, of the property of her husband and for possession of that property? That is the question that arises for determination in this revision Petition.2. Defendant-3 purports to be the adopted son of one Madawa who died as a widow. The plaintiff claims to be a reversioner after her death. She and defendant-3 sold the suit house to defen-dant-2 under the sale deed dated 12-7-1950 for Rs. 500/-. Deft. 2 in turn gifted the suit house to defendant-1 under the deed of gift dated 8-5-1957.3. The plaintiff has pleaded that the adoption of defendant-3 by Madawa was illegal and that there was no legal necessity for her to sell the suit house. The reliefs prayed for in the suit are:--i) Setting aside the alienation of the suit house by deceased Madawa and defendant-3 in favour of defendant-2;ii) Setting aside the further alienation of the suit house ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›