Karnataka Court September 1972 Judgments
Kempanna Vs. M. Shantarajiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant66; AIR1973Mys66
B. Venkataswami, J.1. This appeal by the defendant in Original Suit No 313 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the Additional Second Munsiff, Bangalore, is directed against the judgment and decree, reversing those of the trial Court, made by the Civil Judge, Bangalore District. Bangalore in R. A. No. 147 of 1967. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass, and they are: One Channappa died leaving behind two sons named Chikkathamanna and Muniswam-appa. Chikkathamanna died prior to 1920, leaving behind his widow Venkata-lakshamma who also died sometime prior to the present suit. The other son Muniswamappa died leaving behind his widow Narayanamma and son Shanta-rajaiah and a grand son Mahesha, who are plaintiffs 3. 1 and 2 respectively. It would appear that a portion of the house end certain land in dispute in the present suit were allotted to the share of Venkatalakshmamma the widow of Chik-kathamanna. The said allotment was made pursuant to Ex. P-l dated 30-3-3920. According to t...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Adirajashetty Vs. Koragappa Man Sa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant268; AIR1973Mys268; (1973)1MysLJ154
A. Narayana Pai, C.J.1. This second appeal is by a representative of an alienee of a property belonging to a family governed by Aliyasantana Law. 2, In Original Suit No. 97 of 1963 on the file of the Munsiff at Puttur, out ofwhich this second appeal arises, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 are members of 'aliyasantana family who claim to be the owners of the property in suit. The alienation impeached is the sale thereof dated the 14th of August 1950 by defendants 1 and 2, for themselves and as representing the other members, in favour of the eighth defendant who died pending the suit. Defendants 11 to 13 who are his wife and children now represent his estate. This second appeal is by the thirteenth defendant. 3. The concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below are :-- 1. That the property in suit is the family property of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7; 2. that out of the consideration of Rs. 8,000/- for the sale deed, only a sum of Rs. 3267-25 p. was for purposes of famil...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadevamma and anr. Vs. M. Nanjappa Setty and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant254; AIR1973Mys254
B. Venkataswami, J.1. This Appeal, by defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 431 of 1964 on the file of the Munsiff at Chickmagalur. is directed against an affirming judgment by the Civil Judge Chickmagalur. made in R. A. No. 15/1968.The suit by respondents 1 to 10 is for a declaration of their right of way over a mamool path-way of the width of 20' leading from Dasankatte to Bhairinagiri road, commencing at S. No. 103 and passing through S. No. 103/2 belonging to the appellants (defendants 1 and 2). and S. Nos. 110. 108. 107 and 112, belonging to respondents 1 to 10. of Arasinkuppe village of Chickmagalur Taluk, and for permanent and mandatory injunctions. Their case has been, to say the least, imprecise, and has been put on almost on all the grounds available to them in law, i. e. public right of way, customary easement, easementary right of way under Section 15 of the Basements Act and easement of necessity.3. The case on behalf of the appellants (defendants 1 and 2) is one of denial of su...
Tag this Judgment!The Corporation of the City of Bangalore Vs. the Mysore State Board of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant189; AIR1973Mys189; (1973)1MysLJ103
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, by the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, challenging the notification No. MBW. 19(1)84 dated 7-6-1965. published in the Mysore Gazette dated July 22, 1965, under Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act, 1954, hereinafter called the Act. 2. The case of the petitioner is that several lands belonging to the petitioner-Corporation have been listed as Wakf Properties in the impugned list without making any enquiry or investigation under Section 4 of the Act. The contention of the Wakf Board and some of the Mutawallis of the concerned wakfs is that the lands in question (though originally were properties belonging to the Corporation) have been granted to the various wakfs and that the petitioner has no title to the said properties. 3. If the Commissioner, on the basis of whose enquiry under Section 4 of the Act the list of wakfs has been published, is competent to adjudicate upon disputed title to property between the wakf...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bakulabai Vs. Shidaraya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant134; AIR1973Mys134; (1973)1MysLJ33
ORDERH.B. Datar, J.1. The petitioner filed an application for resumption of the land R. S. (block) No. 26 situated at Zalki village, and an order of resumption was passed by the learned trial Judge in her favour. Accordingly a certificate was issued as provided under Section 14 (1) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, on the 10th of December, 1970. Thereafter an application was filed on the 17th of December, 1970 under Section 14 (5) of the Act, for delivery of possession; on that application the learned Munsif, passed the following order:--'23-1-1971: Admit R. L. C. (Ex. c) 6/71. Date of certificate is 10-12-1970. Application is filed on 17-12-1970, i.e., within 12 months, copy of appellate order produced dismissing the appeal under Section 14 (5) Mys. L. R. Act, I pass order directing that papers be sent to D. C. Bijapur for execution as per law and possession to be delivered after 31-3-1971. This case is closed.'The correctness of this decision was challenged by preferring an appeal to t...
Tag this Judgment!Subraya Bhatta Vs. Lingappa Gowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant171; AIR1973Mys171; (1973)1MysLJ147
B. Venkataswami, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 497 of 1959 on the file of the Second Addl. Munsiff. Puttur. is directed against the judgment end decree, dismissing the suit, made by the Principal Civil Judge, Mangalore in A. S. No. 69 of 1966.2. The material facts, briefly, are as follows:-- The suit has been filed for permanent and mandatory injunctions in respect of water flowing from a spring 'A' through 'khanis' AEX and AEF shown in the Commissioner's sketch marked as Exhibit A-3. The spring 'A' is situated in S. No. 4/1. which is a Government land. From there the water flows through S. No. 29/2 through 'khanis' AEX and AEF in the Commissioner's plan and is collected at point 'B', an artificial pond situated in the land of the plaintiff appellant bearing S. No. 33/14. It is the case of the appellant that the defendant 1 who is the owner of S. No. 28 has obstructed such flow by various acts, which it is unnecessary to set out in detail. Suffice it to state that S. N...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Hamidsha Chandshawale Vs. Seshagiri Bhiku Pai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant228; AIR1973Mys228; (1973)1MysLJ127
ORDERA. Narayana Pai, C.J.1. This revision petition, arising out of proceedings for eviction of a tenant under the Mysore Rent Control Act. 1961. has completely changed its complexion bv reason of the death of the tenant pending the proceedings.2. Petitioner is the landlord. He had rented out certain premises in Belgaum to one Seshagiri Bhikku Pai to run a tea-shop. He instituted proceedings against him to recover possession on the ground that he had sublet the premises contrary to the provisions of the statute and also on the ground that he had kept rents in arrears. The original Court made en order of eviction. Upon appeal, the same was set aside. Before the revision petition could be filed but within the period of limitation prescribed therefor, Seshagiri Bhikku Pai the tenant died. The revision petition was therefore, filed with his wife and children and the manager impleaded as respondents.3. During the hearing of the revision petition before Malimath J. a question arose whether t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Prema and ors. Vs. M. Ananda Shetty and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant69; AIR1973Mys69; (1973)1MysLJ7
Narayana Pai, C.J.1. These two Civil Revision Petitions raise a common question of law relating to the provisions of the Madras Aliyasanthana Act governing the dissolution of marriage between the parties governed by the said Act and the effect, if any, thereon, of the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 concerning dissolution.2. In both the oases, parties belong to the community called Bunts in South Kanara who are governed by the Aliyasanthana Law. They are therefore governed by the Madras Aliyasanthana Act, 1949.3. In each of these cases the petitioner is the husband and he made an application to the Court of Munsiff having jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Aliyasanthana Act. Under the said section, either a husband or wife may present a petition for dissolution of the marriage; no orders are passed thereon immediately. Under Section 9, a copy of the petition has to be served on the respondent at the cost of the petitioner. Under Section 10, on the motion of the petitioner made ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunnimellihalli Dodda Pramanand Prathami PattIn Vyavasaya Sahakari San ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-20-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant68; AIR1973Mys68; (1972)2MysLJ327
Narayana Pai, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition directed against the finding on issue No. 5 in a suit instituted by the respondent against the petitioner-co-operative society has been referred to a Division Bench, because a Bench ruling of this Court in Surathkal Co-op. Town Bank Ltd. v. E. Padmanabhayya. (1967) 2 Mys LJ 503 appears to be in conflict with the view expressed by the Supreme Court in two subsequent decisions in Decean Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd y. Dalichand Jugrai Jain. : [1969]1SCR887 and Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v. Addl. Industrial Tribunal : (1969)IILLJ698SC . 2. The respondent was the Secretary of the Society and had been dismissed, and the suit is in relation to the said dismissal. 3. The defence of the Society was that the suit was beyond the jurisdiction of a Civil Court because it was a dispute falling within the scope of Section 70 of the Mysore Co-operative Societies Act, being a dispute touching either the constitution, management or business of the Co-o...
Tag this Judgment!Manikrao Patil Vs. Bapu Rao Patil and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-20-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant271; AIR1973Mys271
ORDERB. Venkataswami, J.1. I. A. No. TIT is an application filed by the first respondent (Returned Candidate) praying for the striking out of the paragraphs in the Election Petition concerning the allegations relating to corrupt practices alleged to have been indulged in by the first respondent. The relevant issue in this regard is No. 5, which is set out later. This issue was set down for hearing as a preliminary issue. But by common consent of Counsel Issue No. 7 and two other issues, namely 3 and 6, the survival or otherwise of which would depend on the findings on issues Nos. 5 and 7, have also been taken up and treated as preliminary ones. Hence the issues arising for consideration are 3, 5, 6 and 7. The petitioner, it must be stated, has made no attempt to amend or amplify the particulars furnished in the Petition relative to corrupt practices. Before setting them out, it is necessary to briefly advert to a few relevant facts. 2. In the elections held in March, 1972 for a seat fo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »