Karnataka Court March 1977 Judgments
B. Siddalingappa Vs. M.C. Moben
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant10; ILR1977KAR756; 1977(1)KarLJ385
ORDER1. This is a revision petition by the defendant preferred under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, 1964.2. The suit out of which the revision petition arises, has got many ugly features, and it seems to me that there is something more than that meets the eyes.3. The plaint unfolds the following facts: The plaintiff was the Secretary, Udipi Co-operative Stores and also the proprietor of a textile shop called 'Vijaya Textiles'. The defendant was a District Inspector of Co-operative Societies, who was charged with the duty to supervise the Co-operative Societies. The plaintiff has a daughter who, in 1970, appeared for B. Com. degree examination of the Mysore University. The plaintiff wanted her to secure a second class, if not first class. In the beginning of November, 1970, the defendant was in his usual inspection tour to Udipi. When he was inspecting the said Co-operative Stores, the plaintiff expressed his anxiety about his daughter's result. Then, it is said th...
Tag this Judgment!R.G. Hiremath and anr. Vs. T. Krishnappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant13; ILR1977KAR1016; 1977(1)KarLJ429
ORDER1. These two revision petitions raise a common question of law. The question is, whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant as between the parties to the eviction proceedings in respect of the premises occupied by the petitioners.2. The relevant facts bearing on the question are these :In 1915 a site measuring 1 acre 20 guntas was leased to one Rao Saheb Gopalgiri, as a building site under Sanads -- Exs. P. 3 and P. 4. In 1917 Gopalgiri executed a Kabuliyat Ex, P-5 in favour of the Government. The said Kabuliyat provided inter alia conditions for erecting buildings and also stated that he would pay ground rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- (being at the rate of Rs. 24/- per acre) for 50 years commencing from 1st Aug. 1915, and thereafter he would pay such ground rent for such further periods as may from time to time be fixed by lawful authority. It also provided that he should be entitled to occupy the said land, in perpetuity, but if he contravened any of the conditions...
Tag this Judgment!Y. Chandrashekara Hegde Vs. Omayya Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant29; ILR1977KAR969; 1977(1)KarLJ423
1. This second appeal arises out of the Execution Petition No. REP. 387/1960 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Udupi. The decree-holder was one Muddu Shetty. He instituted the Suit O. S. No. 214/1949 against the judgment-debtor for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage created under the mortgage deed dated 14-6-1935. A preliminary decree for redemption was passed on 7-12-1950. Thereafter, Muddu Shetty filed R. I. A. 508/1953 for passing a final decree after complying with the conditions imposed on him by the preliminary decree. That application was dismissed by the order dated 31-3-1954 by the trial Court. Muddu Shetty filed an appeal against that order in A. S. No. 250/1954 on the file of the District Judge, Mangalore. The learned District Judge set aside the order of the trial Court dismissing the application for the passing of the final decree and remanded the case to the trial Court by his judgment dated 24-2-1955. Against the order of remand, an appeal was filed by the judgmen...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataramana Subnaya Bhat and anr. Vs. Timmappa Venkatraman Hegde and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant203; 1977(1)KarLJ353
ORDER1. The order allowing an amendment to the decree in Original Suit No. 143/1957 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Sirsi, is the subject-matter of this revision petition under S. 115 of the Civil P. C.2. The matter arises in this way:One Venkataramana Hegde, father of the respondents, filed Original Suit No, 143/1957 to recover a sum of Rs. 25,000 from the petitioners. The suit was decreed and, during the execution of the decree, there was a compromise to pay the decretal amount by installments. The parties also agreed that the decree should be amended as per the terms thereof. The judgment-debtors appear to have paid some amount as per the instalment agreed upon. The respondents, before me, are the legal representatives of the decree-holder. To recover the 'balance, they filed an application for execution of the decree. The Court, then, said that unless the decree is amended as per the terms of the compromise, they cannot maintain the execution petition. So, the respondents fil...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Jayaraj Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1724
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This application for bail is one Under Section 439 of the Cr. P. C. and is filed in this Court after bail was prayed for and refused in the Court of Session. The case against the petitioner is one Under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the I. P. C. It is stated that on 25-1-1977 at about 11.15 a.m. the petitioner along with several others went to the Court of the 4th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore ; where some case was to be heard in which one Gopi was his adversary. At that time, the petitioner is stated to have hidden his sword Under a green shawl and when he found Gopi in the Court he brandished that sword and caused two piercing wounds on the chest of Gopi. Thereafter, Gopi is stated to have run inside the Court Room. He was pursued by the companions of the petitioners and was assaulted in the Court Room, The incident having taken place in broad day light was witnessed by several persons and the order of the learned Sessions Judge discloses that there ar...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanan Krishnarao Ramdurg Vs. V.S. Siddannavar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant160; ILR1977KAR678; 1977(1)KarLJ301
ORDER1. In this petition filed under S. 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8-1-1975 passed on I. A. No. I in H. R. C. No. 129/74 by the II Additional Munsiff, Belgaum.2. I. A. No. I in H. R. C. No. 129/74 was filed by the respondents, who are admittedly the landlords of the schedule premises. The petitioner is admittedly the tenant of the schedule Premises. By I. A. No. I which the respondents purported to file under S. 10 read with S. 151 of the Civil P. C., the respondents prayed that the enquiry in H. R. C. No. 129/74 should be staved till O. S. No. 34/74, which admittedly, was previously instituted, by the petitioner-tenant, was decided. The learned II Additional Munsiff has directed stay of the enquiry in H. R. C. No. 129/74.3. The Belgaum Municipality issued a notice to the petitioner-tenant, and the respondents-landlords to demolish the Schedule premises on the ground that the same had ...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Tookappa Vs. the State by Ripponpet Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1850
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge Shimoga confirming on appeal Under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar, and thereby sanctioning the disposal of property in favour of the complainant.2. The accused one B. S. Tookappa is the proprietor of a rice mill known as Sri Veerabhadreswara Rice and Flour Mill situate at the village Benavalli of Hosanagar Taluk. He was appointed as sub-agent by the Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, Hosanagar (hereinafter to be referred as the Co-operative Society). The Co-operative Society was engaged in procuring levy of paddy from the growers through the Food Corporation of India. After the levy was complete, the Co-operative Society used to hand over the paddy to the petitioner-accused for keeping the same in their godown for which charges were to be paid. Upon receiving directions from the Co-operative So...
Tag this Judgment!Kanvihalli Chinnappa Vs. Tigari Shivappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant162; ILR1977KAR676; 1977(1)KarLJ300
ORDER1. The question raised in this petition is whether the executing court before confirming the sale, is competent to examine its validity with reference to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (shortly called 'the Act').2. The facts are these:In O. S. No. 746 of 1962, respondent 1 obtained a decree in execution of which certain agricultural lands were brought to sale an 17th Aug. 1972 Respondent 2 purchased the same. Challenging the validity of the sale, the petitioner filed an application under O. XXI R. 90 of the Civil P. C. to set aside the sale on the ground that it was vitiated by irregularities. That application was dismissed. Before the sale was confirmed, lie filed another objection stating that the sale was void inasmuch as it was in contravention of Ss. 79-A and 80 of the Act. The learned Munsiff without going into the merits of that contention held that the Court should confirm, the sale after the application under O. XXI, R. 90 was dismissed. Aggrieved ...
Tag this Judgment!Patre S. Rudra Murthy Vs. the Karnataka Board of Wakfs and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant147; 1977(1)KarLJ342
Tewatia, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the Administrator of the Karnataka Board of Wakfs, Bangalore, dated 24-1-1976 in L. C. C. No. 490 of 1961 exercising functions of the 'Wakfs Board under S. 27 of the Wakf Act of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby he declared the property that was the subject-matter of the impugned order as the property of the Wakf Board and ordered for the taking of steps for the recovery of the possession thereof.2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition and a little history of the property deserve to be noticed in the first instance before dealing with the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the maintainability of the Writ Petition: It is alleged that one Saukar Mohiddin Sab was the owner of the property in question which is a landed property measuring about 376.09 ,acres. He died in the year 1902 and left a Will in which one T. Abdul Khader was named as the legatee and the settler. The said...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›