Karnataka Court March 1974 Judgments
R.V. Govindarajulu and ors. (Representatives of Late Raja Venkatram Ch ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1974
Reported in: ILR1975KAR114; [1975]100ITR621(KAR); [1975]100ITR621(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has stated a case and referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following questions for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law for the purposes of computation of capital gains for the assessment year 1963-64, in estimating the fair market value as on January 1, 1954, of the property of the assessee sold in the relevant year by capitalising the net annual rental value thereof at 10 years purchase (ii) Whether there was any material before the Tribunal for determining 10 as the number with which to multiply the net annual rental of the property of the assessee to arrive at its fair market value as on January 1, 1954 ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 1963-64 he filed a return on December 9, 1963. He died on January 7, 1965, and on March 18, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Husseinsab Imamsab Ballekkai and anr. Vs. Veerabhadrappa Mallappa Gule ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant13; ILR1974KAR969; 1974(2)KarLJ56
ORDER1. This petition under Article 227 is directed against the order made by the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 384 of 1970 (MLR) and it arises in this way.2. The petitioners obtained a decree in the partition suit No. 291 of 1946 from the court of the Civil Judge, J. D., Bagalkot. The decree declared 7/24th share to the petitioners in the undivided estate assessed to the payment of land revenue. The said decree was transmitted to the Deputy Commissioner. Bijapur on 21st March, 1961 for effecting partition, in terms of the said decree.3. The Assistant Commissioner who was competent to divide the lands, found that one of the lands could not be divided without contravening the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. He accordingly reported the matter to the Civil Court. On 23rd September, 1961. the Court directed the sale of the land among the share-holders and to pay the sale proceeds to the petitioners as per th...
Tag this Judgment!Rangarao Ramarao Deshpande Vs. Channappa Basappa Lakamanahalli and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant155; ILR1974KAR797; 1974(2)KarLJ208
1. Appellant is defendant 1, 1st respondent is the plaintiff, respondent 2 is defendant 4, and respondents 3, 4 and 5 are defendants 5, 6 and 7. On 27-7-65, the plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the court proceedings under which the defendants have got the suit property attached before judgment and the further proceedings leading to the sale of the property in execution and delivery of possession are void and are not binding on the plaintiff's rights as a tenant. He prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit property and in the alternative, for delivery of possession in case the defendants are found to be in possession of the suit property. The suit property is Survey No. 554 measuring 13 acres 2 guntas situate in Amminabhavi village. Dharwar taluk. Originally it was a Watan land belonging to defendants 5 to 7. On the abolition of Watans, defendants 5 to 7 became the owners of the same on a re-grant by the G...
Tag this Judgment!B. Srinivasa Reddy and anr. Vs. Khatumbi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-1974
Reported in: ILR1974KAR994; 1974(2)KarLJ213
Chandrashekhak, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is from a judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tumkur, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), awarding compensation for the death of a person in an automobile accident. Appellants 1 and 2 are the owner and the driver respectively of the motor bus involved in the accident. Respondents 1 to 6 herein (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) are the wife and children of Kaza Hussain, the victim of the fatal accident. Respondent 7 herein is the Insurance Company with which the motor bus had been insured against third party risk.2. The claimants presented an application under Section 110-A of the Act before the Tribunal, claiming a compensation of Rs. 25,000 for the death of Kaza Hussain. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the appellants and the Insurance Company were respondents 1 to 3, respectively. To that application the appellants filed one s...
Tag this Judgment!Veerabhadraiah Vs. Muddamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1974
Reported in: ILR1974KAR794; 1974(2)KarLJ187
1. I have heard Sri P. Krishnappa, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in support of the admission of the appeal. The learned counsel submitted that the judgment of the Prl. Civil Judge at Tumkur passed in R. A. 59 of 1971 is not a judgment in accordance with law, inasmuch as it does not conform with Order 41, Rule 31, C. P. C. It was urged that though no arguments were advanced on behalf of the appellant in the lower appellate Court, the Court was bound to look into the grounds of appeal, and to record a judgment. The judgment of the Court below is a brief one and reads as follows: 'HSRS states that the matter may be taken as heard and that the Court may proceed to judgment on perusing the grounds of appeal. Perused the grounds of appeal and from the submission made, it is patently clear that the appellant has no arguments to advance in support of the grounds urged in the appeal. Hence in my view no grounds are substantiated and there is no merit in the appeal. Hence appeal di...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore Vs. Sundaram and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1974
Reported in: [1976]104ITR66(KAR); [1976]104ITR66(Karn); 1974(2)KarLJ499
Venkataswami, J.1. This appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax has come up before us on a reference by a learned single judge of this court and is directed against a judgment of the Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, in R.A. No. 80/1970. That appeal had been preferred by the plaintiff-1st respondent against the judgment and decree of the principal munsiff, civil station, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 326 of 1968. 2. The facts relevant may be set out at some length and are as followed : 3. The plaintiff-1st respondent, Sundaram, and two other persons by name Balasubramaniam and Jayalakshmi constituted a partnership firm. The said firm having been dissolved, they were assessed to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act as an unregistered firm for the assessment year 1963-64. On such assessment, presumably at the instance of the partners, the total tax liability was apportioned between them for the purpose of convenience. The 1st respondent (plaintiff) and Jayalakshmi paid up the portions of t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev Vs. Bainabai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant79; ILR1974KAR787; 1974(2)KarLJ184
1. This second appeal is by the second defendant against the decree passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum, in Regular Appeal No. 141 of 1968, affirming the decree passed by the Additional Munsiff at Chikodi in O. S. No. 100 of 1966.2. The respondent-plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration that the adoption of defendant No. 2 by defendant No. 1 being against the condition of a valid adoption, should be declared that the same is invalid. The plaintiff's husband Krishna was the brother of Gundu. Gundu's son is Mahadev defendant No. 2. Krishna was impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the suit. Defendant No. 1 was ex parte in the Court of first instance and died some time later. Krishna had executed a deed of adoption dated 16-8-1965 as per Exhibit 42, which was registered on the 17th of August, 1965 on the said document being presented for registration by the natural father of defendant No. 2 Gundu. It is the execution of the said adoption deed that gave cause of action to the...
Tag this Judgment!Bhutha Vs. Baburao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant101; ILR1974KAR814; 1974(2)KarLJ164
ORDER1. Plaintiff in O. S. No. 511 of 1965 on the file of the Munsiff, Sagar, has filed this revision petition against the order dated 18-7-1973 passed on I. A. No. 3 in O. S. No. 511 of 1965.2. By I. A. No. 3, the plaintiff requested the Court to grant him permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The learned Munsiff, after hearing both the sides ordered that the plaintiff is allowed to withdraw the suit, but the permission to file fresh suit on the same cause of action was not granted. This order is challenged in this revision petition.3. Shri Cheluvaraja, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged that the application I. A. No. 3 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff was under Order 23, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the learned Munsiff ought not to have treated it as an application under Sub-rule (1) itself and split up the prayer of the petitioner-plaintiff and granted one par...
Tag this Judgment!Albert D'Souza and Ors. Vs. the Divisional Controller and Deputy Gener ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant82; ILR1974KAR809
ORDER1. A common question of law arises in all these twenty-two revision petitions.2. These revision petitions are filed against rejection of plaints in different suits filed by the petitioners in the Court of the Munsiff, Hassan.3. The petitioner-plaintiffs filed those suits contending that the disciplinary enquiries proposed to be held by the Divisional Controller, Hassan, were beyond the powers of the said Divisional Controller and hence, he could not, in law, proceed to hold disciplinary enquiries against them and pass orders of dismissal or such other orders and, therefore, the Court should declare that the action that was taken and further proposed to be taken by the Divisional Controller, was beyond his powers and issue an injunction restraining him from proceeding further into the proposed departmental enquiries against the petitioner-plaintiffs.4. It was contended on behalf of the Divisional Controller that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction as the matter was governed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Nanjamma Vs. Chandrappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant196; ILR1974KAR782; 1974(2)KarLJ156
1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the decree passed by the Civil Judge. Chickmaealur, in R. A. No. 67 of 1970, reversing the decree passed by the Munsiff, Tarikere, in O. S. No. 328 of 1967.2. The plaintiff instituted the suit for partition and possession of half-a-share in the suit properties. The admitted facts of the case are that one Kollurappa was the propositus who died in or about 1936 leaving behind his widow Kariyavva his son Mallappa and his daughter Nanjamma (the plaintiff). The defendant Chandrappa was, on the date of the death of Kollurappa, in the womb of Kariyavva and was born only a couple of months after his father's death. Mallappa died unmarried. By the time Mallappa died, Nanjamma, the plaintiff, had got married. She had claimed a share in the joint family properties under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1933 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), which came into force on 1-1-1934. The suit was res...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »