Karnataka Court October 1972 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.
Basavannappa Kotrappa and anr. Vs. Krishna Trading Co., Gadag
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant129; AIR1973Mys129; (1973)1MysLJ77
ORDERM. Sadananda Swamy, J.1. This revision petition is filed under Section 50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 13-9-1972 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Gadag, in H. R. C. No. 28 of 1972 on I. A. No. I filed by the respondent under Section 43 (3) of the Act. The respondent in that application has prayed for an interim order directing the petitioners, who are opponents Nos. 1 and 2 in the lower Court, to restore the amenity, namely, the supply of electric power and light. That application was allowed. Hence, the petitioners have challenged that order in this revision petition.2. According to the case of the respondent, he is a tenant running a flour mill under the name and style of 'Shri Krishna Trading Co., Gadag' in the premises belonging to the first petitioner having taken the same on a yearly rent of Rs. 650/-. The second petitioner is a firm which supplies electric power. According to him, the first petitioner, in ...
G.V. Rudrappa and anr. Vs. K.S. Siddappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant267; AIR1973Mys267; (1973)1MysLJ83
ORDERH.B. Datar, J.1. The petitioners in this revision petition have instituted O. S. No. 6 of 1967 in the Court of the Civil Judge at Mandya claiming that they are the owners of agricultural lands bearing S. Nos. 111/1, 112, 113, 114 and 123 in all measuring 7 acres 8 guntas situate at Settihalli village in Srirangapatna Taluk. It is alleged that the defendants were their agents cultivating the lands along with others and in contravention of the terms of the agreement removed the crops grown on the suit lands. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs arc in possession of the lands and so a decree for permanent injunction be granted.2. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that he was the tenant of the land in question and he was in possession of the land as a tenant and he was a lawful tenant and therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to get a decree for permanent injunction. On these pleadings, the learned Civil Judge framed several issues and one of the issues was ...
Shivadeviamma and ors. Vs. Sumanaji and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant247; AIR1973Mys247; (1973)1MysLJ364
Venkataramiah, J.1. The relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 9 is set out in our order of reference to Full Bench dated November 3, 1970. Defendants 10 to 12 are the alienees of certain items of property from defendant 1. Defendant 12 was given up in the suit on 20-12-1964.2. We shall briefly refer to certain portions of the pleadings of the parties which are necessary for deciding the question that survives for consideration after the decision of the Full Bench. Plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 9 are members of Jain community governed by Aliyasanthana Law. On the date of the suit the family consisted of only six members, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3. Defendants 4 to 9 were brought on record as the legal representatives of defendant 1 on his death during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff's case was that the first defendant was the manager of the family from 1950 and that all the items mentioned in schedule 'B' consisting of immovable properties and schedu...
Controller of Estate Duty, Mysore Vs. J. Krishna Murthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-1972
Reported in: [1974]96ITR87(KAR); [1974]96ITR87(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. Under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'When, for the Wealth-tax Act, valuation of unquoted shares as on March 31, 1967, has to be done in accordance with the Wealth-tax Amendment Rules, 1967, taking the last published balance-sheet as on December 31, 1966, as the basis, whether the Tribunal is right in placing the same value as on September 11, 1967, the date of the death of the deceased purpose of estate duty assessment resulting in non-consideration of other items not covered by the Wealth-tax Rules going into the determination of the value of shares for estate duty purpose ?'2. Learned counsel on both sides submitted that the question as framed is not satisfactory and that the same may be recast. As agreed to by the parties, we recast the question thus :'Whether there was material for the Appellate Tribunal to deter...
Jaipal Sripal Badnikai Vs. Payappa Jaggappa Waghe and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant223; AIR1973Mys223; (1973)1MysLJ210
M. Sadananda Swamy, J.1. The appellant is the second defendant and respondents are the plaintiffs. The first defendant is the owner of the land survey No. 371/1 and the second defendant is the owner of the land to the west of it. namely, survey No. 377/3. The plaintiffs are the owners of lands which lie to the North. The case of the plaintiffs is that there is a path-way leading from the village which is to the south of the lands of the defendants as well as the lands of a number of other persons; that the pathway enters the land survey No. 371 at its south-eastern point marked as 'F' in the plaint sketch and runs along the south-eastern boundary of the said land to the point 'G' which is the southwestern point. Thereafter, the pathway runs north-west along the common boundary between the lands of the two defendants and reaches the lands of the plaintiffs to the north. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants had dug trenches in their lands to obstruct the said passage. They filed the...
Mohammed Ali Abdul ChanimomIn Vs. Bisahemi Kom Abdulla Saheb MomIn and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant131; AIR1973Mys131; (1973)1MysLJ130
A. Narayana Pai, C.J.1. This second appeal has been referred to a Bench by Venkataswami, J. because some questions relating to lis pendens and limitation of general importance arose for consideration.2. Such questions as arise are, in our opinion, capable of being answered on decisions already rendered by this Court.3. The salient facts are the following:-- The first respondent as plaintiff filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises against the second respondent and the appellant as defendants 1 and 2 respectively. We shall refer to the parties by their rank in the suit.4. First defendant was the owner of house bearing C. T. S. No. 3192 in Bel-gaum. Second defendant was occupying it at a tenant. The plaintiff filed a suit against the first defendant for specific performance of an agreement (Exbt. 59) dated 14-9-48 said to have been entered into between him and the first defendant agreeing to sell the said house to her (plaintiff). First defendant filed a written statement st...
B.S. Ramadevi and ors. Vs. Pramellamba and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant188; AIR1973Mys188; (1973)1MysLJ68
A. Narayana Pai, C.J.1. The appellants are legal representatives of the judgment-debtor in O. S. No. 70/1964 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge. Mysore (which was a suit originally filed before the District Court and transferred to the Civil Judge's Court). The suit was on a mortgage and the final decree was passed on the 26th of March. 1965 for sale of the property to recover more than a lakh and ten thousand rupees. When the execution petition filed by the decree-holder was pending, it is stated that he agreed with the judgment-debtor on the 28th February. 1967 to receive Rupees 96,000/- in full satisfaction of the decree. It is further stated that the judgment-debtor paid the said amount and secured from the decree-holder a receipt in his own hand-writing signed by him and attested by two witnesses. It was the further case of the appellants that on the 1st of March. 1967. decree-holder told the judgment-debtor that he had already reported the payment to the Court and that therefor...
Raghavendrarao Vakil and Co., Bijapur Vs. B.R. Elavia
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant203; AIR1973Mys203; (1973)1MysLJ59
M. Sadananda Swamy, J. 1. The Appellant is the plaintiff, the respondent is the defendant. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 2,233-35 on a promissory note dated 10-12-1962 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant admitted the execution of the promissory note but pleaded that there was no consideration for it. He also pleaded that It was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the suit Both the lower Courts have held that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and that it is unenforceable. It is the correctness of this finding that is in question in this appeal.2. The plaintiff is a Banking firm. Defendant's father used to borrow monies from the plaintiff-firm. He died. According to the case of the plaintiff, thereafter the defendant verified the accounts of his father and was satisfied that a sum of Rs. 3,900/- was due from the defendant's father to the plaintiff-firm. that a remission of Rs. 1,40...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›