Karnataka Court June 1972 Judgments
Mahadevappa Shankerappa Vs. Gauramma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant142; AIR1973Mys142; (1972)2MysLJ477
B. Venkataswami, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant in Case No. 235/1 of 1964 on the file of fee Court of the Munsiff at Gul-barga. It is directed against the Judgment and Decree made by the Additional Civil Judge, Gulbarga, in R. A. No. 337/1965. That was an appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondent. By the said judgment and decree, the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of her title in respect of the suit property.2. Few facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal which are not in dispute, are as follows: The plaintiff Guaramma was the daughter of one Revappa whose wife was one Siddawwa. She had two sisters by name Shivamma and Retnawwa, elder to her. Shivamma predeceased Revappa leaving behind her the present appellant Mahadevap-pa. The said Mahadevappa was brought up by Ratnawwa, one of the daughters of Revappa, who came into possession of the suit properties on the date of the death of her mother Siddawwa, about 17 years prior to the suit...
Tag this Judgment!B.T. Kempanna Vs. T. Krishnappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant58; AIR1973Mys58; (1972)2MysLJ385
H.B. Datar, J. 1. 4th defendant in O. S. No. 808 of 1957 on the file of the Additional I Munsiff. Bangalore, is the appellant in this appeal. That suit was instituted for redemption of the mortgage of the suit schedule property, for accounts and for other reliefs. The case of the plaintiff was that the property belonged originally to one Ramanna son of Dankanikote Naranappa. He died some time in the year 1905 leaving behind him his widow Sampamma. Sampamma died on 4-2-1919. The case of the plaintiff is that after the death of Sampamma. the property vested in the reversioners and the plaintiff having purchased the property by a registered sale deed on 28-12-1955 for a valuable consideration subject to the mortgage was entitled to claim redemption. It is also alleged that during the lifetime of Sampamma. she executed a registered deed of mortgage in favour of Munimuthappa and defendant 1 being the son of Munimuthappa was liable to account. It is necessary to note that the plaintiff did n...
Tag this Judgment!Basavannappa Maharudrappa Pattanshetti Vs. Parvatayya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ115
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. This petition is filed by Basavannappa the husband of the respondent as against the orders passed by the II Additional Munsiff and J.M.F.C. Second Court, Dharwar in Misc. Case No. 58 of 1970 and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Dharwar in Criminal Revision Application No. 32 of 1971.2. The few facts necessary for decision in this case may be narrated briefly as follows:The respondent Parvatawa filed L.C. Suit No. 155 of 1969 against the petitioner Basavannappa her husband in the court of the Civil Judge. Junior Division. Dharwar. praying for a decree towards maintenance. That suit was contested and a decree was passed. The learned Civil Judge directed that the respondent was entitled to Rs. 200/- per year towards her maintenance from her husband Basavannappa, the petitioner. Then the Respondent filed Misc. Case No. 58 of 1970 in the court of the II Addl. Munsiff and J.M.F.C. Dharwar, under Section 488. Cr.P.C. making out a case that her husband the petitioner Ba...
Tag this Judgment!A. Narsappa Vs. Food Inspector, City Municipality
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ728
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the correctness and legality of the conviction and sentence passed on him by the First Class Magistrate. Raichur in C.C. No. 1183 of 1970, and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Raichur in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1972. The petitioner has been convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.2. As it was found that, even after conviction of the petitioner, the petitioner had not made State a party respondent in this revision petition, I directed Sri M. Ramakrishna Government Pleader who is present in court in connection with other matters to take notice of this petition and argue on behalf of the State. He obliged the court b...
Tag this Judgment!Devagya Tuklya and ors. Vs. Shivgya Igya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant4; AIR1973Mys4; (1972)2MysLJ340
Venkataramiah, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their share in the properties of the Joint Hindu family, consisting of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the children of defendant 3. Plaintiff 5 is the mother of plaintiffs 1 to 4 and wife of defendant 3. Defendants 1 and 2 ere the brothers of defendant 3. The plaintiffs brought the above suit on the allegation that the parties to the suit constituted a join Hindu family and that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim partition of their shares in the property. Defendants 1 and 2, inter alia, pleaded that defendant 3 was not a member of their family as he had been given away in adoption to one Dhanu Mharrate and that the suit should even otherwise fail on the ground that the sons of defendant 3 could not file a suit for partition without the consent of defendant 3 when defendant 3 continued to remain joint with his brothers ...
Tag this Judgment!Chanamma Vs. Lingamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant333; AIR1972Mys333; (1972)2MysLJ171
B. Venkataswami, J. 1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 146/66 on the file of the learned Civil Judge, Mandya. It is directed against a concurring Judgment made in R. A. No. 22 of 1968 by the learned District Judge. Mandya. That was an appeal preferred by the present appellant herself against the judgment and decree of dismissal of her suit 2. The material facts are not in dispute, and briefly stated, they are :--the appellant and the first defendant and another are three widows of three brothers who were members of a joint Hindu family. The appellant is the widow of the youngest brother who died last. The first respondent is the widow of the second brother, who died subsequent to the death of the eldest brother. The widow of the eldest is not arrayed in the suit. By an agreement between the three widows on 23-3-1927 the suit properties were allotted for maintenance to the two senior widows. The said agreement has been produced along with the plaint and the same has ...
Tag this Judgment!Veerbasavaradhya and ors. Vs. Devotees of Lingadagudi Mutt and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant280; AIR1973Mys280
1. The above appeals arise out of the decree passed in Original Suit No. 463 of 1964 on the file of the Second Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City. It was instituted originally on 12-4-1962 in Original Suit No. 22 of 1962 on the file of the District Judge, Bangalore, by ten plaintiffs in a representative capacity with the leave of the court under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the reorganisation of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in 1964, it was transferred to the file of the Second Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City.2. The suit relates to a property bearing municipal Nos. 9, 9/A and 10 situated in Jumma Musjid Road, Bangalore City. The suit was instituted for a declaration that the suit property belongs to a public trust called 'Lingadagudi Mutt' and that the defendants have no manner of rights or interest in it; that the alienations effected by defendant-1 in favour of the other defendants were null and void; for possession of the same after removing a...
Tag this Judgment!Champalal Bhaktawarmal Vs. Smt. Sumitramma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant110; AIR1973Mys110; (1972)2MysLJ104
B. Venkataswami, J. 1. This appeal by the defendant in O. S. No. 167 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Shora-pur, is directed against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge at Gulbarga in R. A. No. 157 of 1965, whereby the suit of the respondent was decreed subject to certain conditions in modification of the decree of the trial Court.2. The material facts are as follows: The appellant was a tenant of the respondent in the suit premises. They entered into an agreement of sale on 21-1-1954, under which the defendant-appellant agreed to purchase the suit house for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/- O. S. (Osmania currency). A sum of Rs. 2,150/- O. S. was paid by the appellant to the respondent on that day towards part payment of the consideration. The appellant was put in possession of the property by way of part-performance of the contract, evidenced by such agreement. According to the resondent, the appellant refused to complete the transaction in fulfilment of the oblig...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vasavamba Vs. Parasuram Sait and Sons
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant291; AIR1973Mys291
H.B. Datar, J.1. Appellant is the plaintiff. She instituted on the 19th of January, 1961, Original Suit No. 4 of 1961 before the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Mysore, for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties; for recovery of manse profits of Rs. 4,500/-; and also claimed other reliefs. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to the ownership of one C. Raghavendra Rao. Plaintiff i.e., the wife of one V.S. Rajaram Setty filed a suit for recovery of certain monies due to her from C. Raghavendra Rao. In that suit, the case of the plaintiff is that the properties in question were attached before judgment on the 4th of February, 1954. Thereafter, there was a compromise arrived at between the parties and a decree for Rs. 6,727/- with costs and interest was passed. A period of six months was also granted to C. Raghavendra Rao for payment, but he failed to pay the same, proceedings were taken out in execution No. 25 of 1956 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. B.R. Honnappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant86; AIR1973Mys86; (1972)2MysLJ169
Venkataramiah, J.1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India is the appellant in both these appeals which are filed against the orders of the Civil Judge, Bangalore. The appellant filed two execution petitions before the lower Court for realising the decretal amounts due under two separate mortgage decrees against two different sets of judgment-debtors, and in both the cases the lower Court held that the decrees had been satisfied. Aggrieved by the orders of the lower Court, the appellant has filed these appeals. Since the question of law raised in both these cases is common, we find it convenient to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment.2. The question of law involved in these two appeals relates to the mode of appropriation of payments made by the judgment-debtors. The contention of the judgment-debtors is that if adjustment is made after allowing counter-interest at the rate prescribed by the decree on all the sums paid by them from time to time, the decrees in both the ca...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »