Karnataka Court September 1972 Judgments
M. Panchaksharappa Vs. Shivayogeshwara Cotton Press Co. of Davanagere
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant135; AIR1973Mys135; (1973)1MysLJ1
Venkataramiah, J.1. On a reference made by Jagannatha Shetty, J., the above revision petition has conic up for hearing before this Division Bench. It arises out of an application ( I. A. 3) filed by the petitioner under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside a sale of immovable property belonging to him held on 11-4-1963 in Execution Case No. 476/ 62 on the file of the Munsiff, Davangere. The respondent had filed the above execution petition against the petitioner for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,846-86. The sale notice in the above case was issued to the petitioner. On 30-11-1962 and on his refusal to receive the same, service on the petitioner was held sufficient by the Munsiff. Thereafter, an application (I. A. 1) was filed by the petitioner requesting the Court to hear him on the objections that he had filed to the execution proceedings. After several adjournments, the case was set down for hearing of I. A. 1 on 1-3-1963. When the case was called on 1...
Tag this Judgment!Gill and Company (P.) Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Ii Circle, G ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MysLJ45; [1973]31STC336(Kar)
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, J. 1. In these writ petitions, the following three questions of law have been referred to us for decision, in view of the conflict in two Bench decisions of this Court, namely, Harakchand Rugchand v. State of Mysore ([1969] 23 S.T.C. 197) and A. Misrimal Jain and Co. and Others v. State of Mysore ([1971] 28 S.T.C. 137) : '(1) Does section 9 of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969, operate to set aside the order of this court in Writ Petitions Nos. 550 to 554 of 1967 quashing the assessment orders and directing refund of the tax collected and to revive the original assessment orders by this court (2) Does section 9 of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969, operate to automatically revive the original assessment orders that had been set aside on appeal or revision following the decision in Yaddalam's case : [1965]2SCR129 and (3) Is there any machinery provision in the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, read with section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Mysore, Bangalore Vs. D.S. James ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant105; AIR1973Mys105; (1973)1MysLJ62
Ahmed Ali Khan, J. 1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, submitted a statement of the case under Section 54 (1) of the Mysore Stamp Act, 1957 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the 'Act'). The question for determination is the liability of the agreement dated 23-2-1966 executed by the loaners to be stamped as a mortgage deed under the provisions of the Act. 2. The necessary facts for the appreciation of the point of law involved in this reference are : The two petitioners as agriculturists had applied for the loan of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for the purchase of a tractor. The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum, sanctioned them a loan of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for the said purpose. The two loaners and the Tahsildar, Gokak, executed a document on 23-2-1966 (hire purchase agreement for tractor and implements) and presented, the same for registration in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gokak, on 23-2-1966. On 27-6-1968, they (the loaners) received an order from the Assistant Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Shivadeviamma by Lrs. and ors. Vs. Sumanji and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant299; AIR1973Mys299; (1973)1MysLJ401
Narayana Pai, C.J. 1. This reference is by a Division Bench of this Court which heard RFA 50 of 1965 arising out of a suit for partition of the properties of a Hindu family in the district of South Kanara governed by Aliyasanlhana Law. The facts and circumstances leading to the reference are briefly as follows:The parties to the suit are descendants of one Cheluvamma and are related to each other as indicated by the genealogical tree given below: CHELUVAMMA____________________________|_____________________________| |Marudevi Amrithavathi SarasammaManjamma Ammanni _________________________|___________________d/o Rajamathi | | | |_______|__________________ Namanna Rathi Bohojappa Anantha| | Hegde Devi Hegde NathiPremavathi (Deft. 2) Sumanaji (Pltf. 1) (Deft. 1)| |Marudevi ______|__________________________(Deft. 3) | |Amrithavathi (Pltf. 2) Vinayachandra (Pltf. 3) 2. The three plaintiffs and the three defendants were the only members of the family surviving and alive at the lime of the in...
Tag this Judgment!Gangappa Ramappa Damannavar and ors. Vs. Kallappa Sonkappa Katti and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant190; AIR1973Mys190
M. Sadananda Swamy, J.1. The appellants in R.S.A. 754/70 are the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the trial Court in Special Suit No. 37 of 1967 and the respondents are defendants 1 end 2. The parties will be referred to in relation to R.S.A. 754/70. The appellants ere common in all the three appeals. In R.S.A. 753/70 the 1st defendant Bharmappa is the sole respondent and in R.S.A. 728/70 the second defendant Kallappa is the sole respondent. 2. The suit properties consist of a house bearing V. P. C. No. 220 situate at Dhupdal village in Gokak Taluk and two lands -- one R. S. No. 88/1 plus 2, plus 3, plus 4-A measuring 6 acres and another bearing R. S. No. 191/1 measuring 4 acres 18 guntas both situate at Dhupdal. These properties originally belonged to one Kallappa Mallappa Damannavar, who was the brother of the appellants' father Ramappa. Kallappa died on 23-12-1938 leaving no issues either male or female. After his death, his widow Akkavva inherited these properties. She died on 6-9-1966. There...
Tag this Judgment!R. Anantha Rao Vs. Smt. Indumathi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant139; AIR1973Mys139; (1973)1MysLJ31
ORDERV.S. Malimath, J.1. This is a tenant's revision petition against the order passed by the District Judge, Dharwar, in H. R. C. Appeal No. 18 of 1971, affirming the order passed by the Additional Munsiff, Hubli in H. R. C. No. 198 of 1967. The respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction of the petitioner-tenant under Section 21 (1) (a) and(p) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961. It appears the case under Section 21 (1) (a) was not pressed in the court below. The Courts below have, therefore, confined attention to the case of the petitioner falling under Section 21 (1) (p) of the Act. The said clause enables the landlord to secure eviction of that tenant, if the tenant, whether before or after the coming into operation of Part V of the Act has built or acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a suitable building. The case of the landlord is that the tenant has built a suitable premises for his residence in Vijaynagar colony in the City of Hubli. That building was b...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chinnamma and ors. Vs. the Devanga Sangha and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant338; AIR1973Mys338
1. The above appeal is filed against the decree passed in Original Suit No. 210 of 1964 on the file of the Civil Judge of Bangalore City. The said suit was originally instituted on 11-7-1961 in Original Suit No. 40 of 1961 on the file of the District Judge. Bangalore, and was later on transferred to the file of the learned Civil Judge under the provisions of the Mysore Civil Courts Act. 1964. 2. The suit was instituted by the Devanga Sangha which is a Society registered under the Mysore Societies Registration Act 1904 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), for a declaration that the property described in the schedule attached to the plaint belonged to it and for possession of the same. A claim for damages of Rs. 855.60 till the date of suit and for future mesne profits was also made in the plaint. The suit property is a house bearing No. 13 and situated in 11th Cross Street. Cubbonpet, Bangalore City, and its market value on the date of the suit was stated to be Rs. 20,000/-. 3. T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›