Karnataka Court August 1985 Judgments
K.V. Narayan Vs. S. Sharana Gowda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant77; ILR1986KAR1130
1. Both the advocates submitted that the appeal itself may be heard on merits. Accordingly the arguments on merits of the appeal advanced by both the advocates were heard and the appeal is disposed of finally with the consent of both the advocates.This is a plaintiffs appeal directed against the order dated 31-7-1985 passed by the 12th Additional City Civil Judge, (City Civil Court), Bangalore City, in 0. S. No. 633 of 1984 dismissing 1. A. No. I filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules I and 2, C. P. C. and allowing 1. A. No. 2 filed by the defendant under Order 39, Rule 4, C. P. C. and thereby dissolving the ad interim temporary injunction.2. R. S. No. 81 of Kethamaranahall village, Rajajinaga III Stage, was an inam land. It was in possession and enjoyment of Archaka Srinivasaiah singh 1931. The said Srinivasaiah had applied to the Special Deputy Commissioner of Inams Abolition for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the said land in his favour. On 4-2-1972, the said Srinivas...
Tag this Judgment!Babi D'Souza Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR900
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a second Judgment - Debtors's revision against the order dated 15-7-1983 passed by the Civil Judge, Udupi, in execution case No. 45/83 over-ruling the objections of the second J. Dr.2. The Decree-Holder sued out the execution to recover the money from J. Dr. 2-revision petitioner, by attachment and sale of the occupancy rights conferred on the second J. Dr. by the Land Tribunal.3. J. Dr-2 resisted the petition contending that the occupancy rights conferred on him cannot be sold at all as per Section 61 of the Land Reforms Act. The Trial Court over-ruled the objections of J Dr. 2-revision petitioner. Hence, the revision.4. It is undisputed that the occupancy rights have been conferred on J Dr-2 in respect of Sy. No. 76/8 and 76/16. Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act reads :'61. Restriction on transfer of land of which tenant has become occupant :- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, no land of which the occupancy has been granted to a...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Jayashree
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR820
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Order dated 15-11-1982 of Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, declining to accord permission for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Revenue Act') has been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal as per impugned order with a further direction to accord sanction for conversion imposing such conditions as are permissible under law.2. Relief sought for conversion of S. No. 16 situate at Uttarahalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk, has been refused by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore solely on the ground 'land in question lies' in rural tract (agricultural zone) where no developments are permissible as per the approved Outline Development Plan (hereinafter referred to as 'ODP' of Bangalore.3. Appellate Tribunal has held that there is no justification to refuse permission when adjoining lands such as S. Nos. 15, 17 & 18 are permitted to be used as no...
Tag this Judgment!Udayashankar Vs. House Rent Controller
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR981
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. These two Petitions are filed by the tenant in occupation of the premises bearing No. 15 (Model House) Jayalakshmipuram, Temple Road, Mysore. The respondent in the revision Petition is also the second respondent in the Writ Petition, and he is the landlord of the premises. He is hereinafter referred to as the respondent.2. The respondent filed an application under Section 17(2) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the House Rent Controller, Mysore City praying that the dispute between him and the tenant regarding the increase of tax claimed under Section 17(1) of the Act be decided. He also filed another application under Section 21A(2) of the Act for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he has secured an alternative suitable accommodation. The House Rent Controller has decided both the applications together by a common order dated 16th March, 1985. He has passed the following order :-'(1) A fair rent of Rs. 377.80...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanamma Vs. District Registrar and Special Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1985
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1064
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner was aggrieved by the refusal of the registration of a document by the concerned Sub-Registrar. On that refusal, he preferred an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act to the Registrar. That appeal was filed within the time prescribed. The notice was issued to the parties and after several adjournments the case was posted for orders on 17-8-1984. On the representation made by the Counsel for the appellant it was re-opened and further adjournments were granted and finally came up for hearing on 23-2-1985 before the Appellate Authority, namely, District Registrar, the first respondent herein. On that day, neither the petitioner nor the Counsel was present. Therefore the first respondent dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. Aggrieved by that order which is at Annexure-B to the petition, the petitioner has approached this Court for redress, inter alia, contending that the order of dismissal for non-prosecution is without jurisdicti...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Krishnan Vs. Thayappa Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3182
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, J.1. The application filed by the landlord for eviction of his tenant under Section 21(l)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act ('the Act' for short) has been allowed by the Court below. The validity of the order of eviction has been challenged by the tenant in this Revision Petition.2. Thayappa Setty has got three sons, namely, Ramaiah Setty, Narasimha Setty and Panduranga Setty, besides a widowed daughter. Thayappa Setty owns a building at Narayana Pillai Street, Civil Station, Bangalore. The ground-floor of the building is under the occupation of Thayappa Setty along with his son Ramaiah Setty. The first floor is under the occupation of Narasimha Setty along with his widowed sister. One room in the first floor has been kept vacant and is in the possession of Panduranga Setty. There is an out-house connected with the main building and that out-house is under the occupation of the tenant. Thayappa Setty brought an action for eviction of the tenant on the ground ...
Tag this Judgment!Gurumallappa Vs. Mallappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3511
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a defendant-1's revision against the order dated 22-7-1983 passed by the Munsiff Malavalli, in O.S.No.177 of 1980 allowing I.A.No.3 filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. and Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.2. The facts are as follows :Defendant-1 and Doddegowda, father of defendants-2 and 3, borrowed Rs.2,000/- on 1-1-1975 from Mallappa, son of Malladevaru, and executed a pronote. They again borrowed another sum on 10-2-1975 and executed another pronote in favour of this very Mallappa, son of Malladevaru.3. The plaint was filed in the Court showing the name of the plaintiff as Mallappa, son of Malladevaru. But it was signed by Veerappa, the brother of the plaintiff, and it was also verified by Veerappa, the brother of Mallappa. It is undisputed that the vakalath was signed by Veerappa himself and the vakalath was handed over to the lawyer.4. Later on it was found that the description of the plaintiff as Mallappa, son of Malladevaru ...
Tag this Judgment!i.P. Raveendra Vs. Bangalore University and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant234
ORDER1. This Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of preliminary hearing after notices to the respondents and after giving opportunity to the Bangalore University to file its statement of objections which has been filed.2. This is the second round litigation by the petitioner. He approached this Court with Writ Petition No. 7297 of 1984 seeking a mandamus from this Court directing respondent Bangalore University to grant him a B.E. Degree Certificate in Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) as he had passed the required examination only in the 4th year of the course in the University and the results of which had accordingly, been announced. It is seen from the facts noticed by this Court in the aforementioned Writ Petition that he was compelled to approach the Court in view of the University rectifying an error said to have been committed by it in the academic year 1977-78 by wrongly declaring him to have passed in a subject in which he had not actually passed. What is not disputed...
Tag this Judgment!Sadananda Hegde Vs. Regional Transport Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3364
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In these Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 14-4-1985 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Revision Petitions 160, 224 and 318/1984 produced as Annexure-C, and to remit the matter for fresh consideration including the question of limitation.2. Pursuant to the opening of the route on 21-4-1984 by the R.T.A. D.K. under Sub-No. 23/84-85 the petitioner has made an application for grant of a stage carriage permit. Therefore, he is aggrieved by the cancellation of the aforesaid Resolution of the R.T.A. Hence he has come up with these petitions.3. Though in the Petitions, the petitioner has sought for quashing the resolution dated 18-8-1984 passed in Sub-No. 92/84-85 by the 1st Respondent and also the order dated 14-4-1985 passed by the Tribunal in Revision Petition Nos. 224 and 318/84, but, Sri S. V. Krishnaswamy, Learned Couns...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Channabasappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3290
ORDERVenkatesh, J.1. This revision is by the State. It is directed against the order dated 15-3-1984 of the Special Judge (District and Sessions Judge) Bellary in Special Case No. 9/83 on his file discharging these Respondents who were the accused in that case.2. The Learned State Public Prosecutor contends that the order of the Court below discharging the accused was the result of amisreading of the facts of the case, and a wrong approach by it.3. The facts of the case, in brief, are :The Kampli Police of Bellary District filed a charge sheet against these Respondents in the month of September 1983 alleging that when their rice mill and its premises were raided and checked on 3-9-1982 by them, they had found the accused having not correctly maintained the stock of* Crl. R.P. No. 510 of 1984 dated 23rd August 1985.rice they had with them and of being in possession of 151 bags of rice in excess (i.e. unaccounted) and thereby being liable to be proceeded against under Sections 3 and 7 of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »