Karnataka Court October 1986 Judgments
Govindareddy Vs. Narasimha Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR128
Kulkarni, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff against the order dated 7-10-1976 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, Kolar in R.A. 139/73 dismissing the suit and thus reversing the judgment and decree dated 27-6-1973 passed by the Munsiff, Chickballapur, in O. S. 81/68 decreeing the suit.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration of his title to the suit property i.e. electric pump, and for a declaration that he is enticed to obtain possession of the said property from the Court of Special First Class Magistrate, Chickballapur before whom the suit property was produced in connection with C. C. 131/66 on his file and that it may be delivered to the plaintiff and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from taking possession of the suit property from the Court etc.3. The plaintiff is the owner of the electric pump-set and he was also the owner of a bullock and a buffalo. They were stolen from the possession of the plaintiff on 3-10-64. On the basis...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Sreenivasa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR811; 1987(1)KarLJ195
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The petitioner has presented this petition questioning the legality of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore Sub-Division, Bangalore, declaring the purchase of certain agricultural lands by the petitioner as void in view of Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) Act, 1978 ('the Act' for short).2. The facts and circumstances of the case are as follows :Section 4 of the Act declared sale of agricultural lands granted to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in contravention of the condition of grant as null and void. Section 5 of the Act empowered the Assistant Commissioner concerned to take action for cancellation of such sales and for restoration of the lands to original grantee. Pursuant to the said provision, action was initiated against the petitioner for declaring the purchase of 3 acres of land in survey No. 10/5 of Pattanageri village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Basavaraju Vs. University of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR817
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this Writ Petition the petitioner has questioned the legality of the decision of the Mysore University cancelling his admission to the L.L.B. Degree course and also to the M.A. Degree Course in History.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follow : The petitioner holds Master's degree in Economics of the Mysore University. He joined a private law College, namely, Saradavilas Law College for the law degree course in the academic year 1982-83. He also sought admission to the M.A. Degree Course in History in the academic year 1983-84, and the same was granted. Subsequently, the University, noticing that the petitioner was pursuing two degree courses simultaneously, issued a notice dated 23-7-1985, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his admission to the three year L.L.B. Degree course as also to the M.A. Degree Course in History, should not be cancelled in view of the Regulations, which prohibited the candidates from pursuing the two degree cou...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Jose and ors. Vs. D. Anantha Bhat
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant173; ILR1986KAR4031
Chandrakantaraj URS, J.1. This appeal by the indigent is directed -against the judgment and decree dtd. 20-4-1985 in O.S. No. 20 of 1981 on the file of the Civil Judge, Puttur, D. K. The respondent in this appeal filed that suit inter alia stating that there Was an agreement to sell as per Exhibit P-1 by which the defendant appellant had agreed to convey to him the suit scheduled property being agricultural land with buildings, Kumki rights right of way and water etc., that he had paid an advance of Rs. 13,000/- in two instalments and had further agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on or before 30th April 1981 and take possession of the property and complete the transaction of sale within six months from the said date. He further stated that on 27-4-1981, he went to the house of the defendant to tender Rs. 5000/-but did not find him in the house. Therefore, returned without paying the amount. He was accompanied by two of his friends. Similarly, he attempted to tender the amount on 30-41...
Tag this Judgment!P. Seetharam Bhatt Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR870; 1987(1)KarLJ241
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the following question of law arises for consideration :'Whether a writ or order can be issued directing the transfer of a proceeding commenced pursuant to Form No. 7 read with Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act('the Act' for short) before the Land Tribunal constituted for a Taluk, to any Land Tribunal constituted for any other Taluk?'2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follow : The petitioner has made an application under Section 48-A of the Act in the prescribed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy right in respect of certain agricultural lands specified in his application on the ground that he was lawfully cultivating those lands as a tenant on and prior to 1-3-1974, before the Land Tribunal constituted for Belthangadi Taluk, Dakshina Kannada district. The petitioner has alleged that the Chairman of the Tribunal - the third respondent, pressurised him not to press the application claiming occupancy right accepting some monetary...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. R. Rajashekar Vs. S. Narayan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR757
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Both tenant and owner, have challenged the order of Rent and Accommodation Controller, City area, Bangalore passed under Section 21-A of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to the extent they are aggrieved.2. Three contentions urged by Sri U.L. Narayana Rao, Learned Counsel for petitioner, in first case, to invalidate impugned order are-(i) no action could have been taken under Section 21-A of the Act in view of pendency of proceedings under Section 21 ; (ii) not preceded by a notice as contemplated under proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21-A of the Act ; and (iii) in the absence of pro-vision similar to Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21-A no action could have been taken under Sub-section (2) of Section 21-A of the Act.3. Undisputedly, petitioner in first case is the tenant of premises and petitioner in second case is the owner. Order of eviction passed under Clause (h) of Section 21(1) of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Yajaman Mothi Ajjappa Vs. Changalappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR4137
ORDER 21 -- Powers of executing Court -- Can go behind the decree only to find whether decree is a nullity, passed by Court having no inherent jurisdiction at all.If the Court that passed the decree, had got the inherent jurisdiction, the executing Court cannot go into the question as to whether the decree passed by a Court having jurisdiction was in accordance with law or not. The Court has got the power to decide rightly as well as wrongly. The executing Court has no jurisdiction to find out as to whether the decree passed by a competent Court is in accordance with law or not. The executing Court can only determine the question as to whether the Court that passed the decree was competent and had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and to pass a decree or not. It has no jurisdiction to find cut as to whether the decree passed by such a competent Court or legal or not or is one supported by the evidence on record or is right or wrong. Therefore the law has wisely put a restriction on th...
Tag this Judgment!R. Lakshmikantan Vs. Commissioner for Public Instruction
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR882
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The petitioner who had been appointed as the Principal of the Vidyodaya Junior College, T. Narasipura, has presented this petition questioning the legality of the order of the Joint Director of Public Instruction, Mysore Division, Mysore, issuing a direction to the Management of the College to appoint Respondent-4 as the Principal of the College, displacing the petitioner.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follow : Both respondent-4 and the petitioner were Teachers in the High School established by the same Management. Both of them secured Master's Degrees, which is the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer in a Junior College. After the Management established a Junior College, the petitioner and Respondent-4 were appointed as Lecturers on 1-6-1972. Both of them were continuing in the post of Lecturer. When the post of Principal of the Junior College became vacant, the Management appointed the petitioner as the Principal on temporary...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Devendrappa Bujjappa Kadabi an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas404(Kar)
K.A. Swami, J.1. This plaintiff's appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree January 31, 1972, passed by the learned District Judge Dharwadi, in Civil Appeal No.290 of 1964 reversing the preliminary decree dated September 29, 1964, passed by the learned civil Judge, Dharwad, in Special Suit No.4 of 1962. The trial court passed a preliminary decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.18,591 together with interest and costs. The lower appellate court has set aside the decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit as brought by the plaintiff corporation. 2. The appeal is referred to a Division Bench having regard to the importance of the question of law arising for consideration, 3. The appellant Life Insurance Corporation of India ('Corporation' for short), is the plaintiff in the suit. Respondents are the defendants. Respondent No. 1 died during the pendency of the appeal. His legal representatives are brought on record on record as respondents Nos.1 (a) to 1(e) The parties w...
Tag this Judgment!T.B. Mody and ors. Vs. Ghanshyam J. Sanghrajka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant268; 1987(1)KarLJ96
Chandrakantaraj URS, J. 1. The plaintiffs were partners with the father of the defendants at a given point of time. Among other things, the firm was dealing in dry cells. Defendants' father retired from the firm with effect from 1-7-1976. Consequently, accounts were taken as on 30-6-1976. In such an account, it was found that the firm had incurred loss and about Rs. 15,000/- and odd would be the share of loss to be borne by each of the partners as on 30-6-1976. In that circumstance, the plaintiffs issued notice to the defendants as their father had since died calling upon the defendants to make good the loss. Defendants took the plea in the reply notice that they were not liable to make good any loss incurred in the business of their father as they had not inherited anything from him. They also stated that the loss incurred on account of non-salability of the dry cells should be debited to the account of the supplier and not to that of the partners and, therefore, they were not liable ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »