Karnataka Court January 1987 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
T.V. Laxminarayana Setty and ors. Vs. B.C. Venkatakrishnaiah Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Kant177
ORDER1. This is a revision by the judgment-debtors against the order dated 24-3-1984 passed by the Munsiff, Chintamani, in Execution No. 16 of 1984 dismissing I.A. No. 3 filed by the judgment-debtors under O. 21, R. 29 C. P. C.2. For the purpose of understanding the case, it is necessary to find out the facts leading to the filing of the execution petition and the filing of I.A. No. 3. The respondent in the present revision is the decree-holder. The present revision petitioners are the judgment-debtors.3. The parties have been referred to with reference to their position in the executing Court.4. The decree-holder filed a petition under S. 21(l)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, in H.R.C. No. 28/77 against Vishwanathaiah Setty, the father of the present judgment-debtors. The said H.R.C. case was resisted by the judgment-debtors' father Vishwanathaiah Setty. Ultimately an order of eviction was passed in the said H.R.C case on 5-9-1980. Vishwanathaiah Setty being aggrieved by t...
Dr. P. Raghupathi Vs. Dr. R.G. Lavi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR670
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1. Those petitions are directed against a common order passed by She District Judge, Kolar, in HRC. RP, No. 31 of 1984.2. Facts giving rise to these proceedings are as follows :Shop building situated at Gestha Road, Robertsonpet, KGF is the suit schedule property. Dr. P.G. Raghupathi is its owner ; Dr. R. G. Lavi who is in possession, is the tenant. Owner is a Pediatrician, working as Lecturer in Child Health C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore (Tamil Nadu). His wife, a Gyneacologist, is working as Assistant Surgeon in Government Head Quarters Hospital, Vellore.Tenant is an Ophthalmologist, who has an 'eye clinic' is the schedule promises. Originally he had taken two rooms, as his surrendered one of them He has been paying rent of Rs. 200/- per month.The owners having decided to resign their respective jobs at Vellora (Tamil Nadu) and start private practice in their home town, initiated proceedings for eviction. The tenant contested on several grounds. The Learned Munsiff fr...
Siddaiah Vs. Returning Officer, Bangalore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant135; ILR1987KAR595
ORDER1. This is a revision by the petitioner against the order dated 10-12-1985 passed by the l7th Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore in Election Petition No. 495/1983 holding that the petition had abated on account of the death or respondent-2, and as a consequence thereof dismissing the election petition. 2. It is undisputed that the present revision petitioner and respondent-2 Krishna and others had contested from Division No. 31 in the election held on 7-8-1983. It is also undisputed that the deceased Krishna (R-2) was the successful candidate. 3. The revision petitioner contested the, election of the successful candidate (deceased Krishna R-2) on the ground that respondent1, the Returning Officer committed serious irregularities in the counting and he prayed for setting aside the election of respondent-2 and also for a declaration that he was the duly elected candidate. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 resisted the petition. 5. After the petitioner led his evidence and has closed his evidence...
Vasanth Gururao Desai and ors. Vs. Nabhiraj Padmappa Kunder, Major and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Kant23
ORDER1. Though this matter is listed for orders today, I have heard learned, advocates for final disposal.2. This petition is filed by the owners' who have obtained an eviction decree in H. R. C. No. 185/1972. Petitioners are brothers. In the said proceedings, parties entered into a compromise on 16-7-1975, and in terms of the said compromise, a decree was passed. Thereafter, the tenant filed civil suit and obtained temporary injunction restraining the owners from obtaining possession. On 25-11-1977, after the injunction was dissolved, the landlords executed the decree and obtained possession on 27-11-1977. The tenant petitioner has filed this petition on 25-11-1978, complaining that the landlords alter obtaining possession have failed to occupy the premises and therefore he may be permitted to re-enter the premises under S. 25 of the Rent Control Act. The case of the landlords was that they have been in possession of the premises and one of their friends is residing there. The court a...
Vasanth Gururao Desai Vs. Nabhiraj Padmappa Kunder
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR772; 1987(1)KarLJ103
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1. Though this matter is listed for orders to-day, I have heard Learned Advocates for final disposal.2. This Petition is filed by the owners who have obtained an eviction decree in H.R.C. No. 185/1972. Petitioners are brothers. In the said proceedings, parties entered into a compromise on 16-7-1975, and in terms of the said compromise, a decree was passed. Thereafter, the tenant filed civil suit and obtained temporary injunction restraining the owners from obtaining possession. On 25-11-1977, after the injunction was dissolved, the landlords executed the decree and obtained possession on 27-11-1977. The tenant-petitioner has filed this Petition on 25-11-1978, complaining that the landlords after obtaining possession have failed to occupy the premises and therefore he may be permitted to re-enter the premises under Section 25 of the Rent Control Act. The case of the landlords was that they have been in possession of the premises and one of their friends is residing...
Syed Haisanulla and ors. Vs. Ahmad Beig and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant93; ILR1987KAR591
ORDER1. This is a revision by LRs. 3 and 6 against the order dated 8-2-1985 passed by the Civil Judge, Kolar, in Misc. Appeal No. 40 of 1982 affirming the order dated 16-91982 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Kolar, in Misc. No. 40 of 1919 dismissing the same.2. Sabulal the petitioner in Misc. No. 40/79 was the defendant in O.S.No. 160/79. According to him he received the summons in 0. S. No. 160/79 and that he did not know reading and writing English and hence he handed over the summons to his son to let him know what it was. According to him his son was unable to say what it was. According to him, his son stated that he would show it to the lawyer and so saying took it away. In the meanwhile his son went to Bangalore for some work with the said summons. He did not return home well in time. He returned only on27-6-1979 at night. He questioned him on that very night what it was. According to him, his son told him that he had misplaced it. He and his son searched for it and traced it. T...
Abdul Azeez Vs. Sakamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR498; 1987(1)KarLJ202
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Petitioner faced with eviction order under Clause (f) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') viz., that he is a sub-lessee, has presented this Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.It will be convenient to refer to the parties in their original character of petitioners and respondents, bearing in mind that petitioners 1 and 2 are respondents 1 and 2 and second respondent is the revision petitioner. First respondent arrayed as third respondent has remained ex-prate throughout. L.Rs. of first respondent have been brought on record as she died during the pendency of this revision petition.2. Fact that second petitioner has become the owner pursuant to a compromise (Ex. P-1) entered into in O. S. No. 28 of 1973 on the file of the Civil Judge, Tumkur, is not controverted. Present proceedings have been initiated by petitioners after withdrawal of H.R.C. No. 2 ...
M. Narayanappa Vs. Hemavathi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR715
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by the plaintiff against the order dated 30-3-1984 passed by the Munsiff, Gowribidanur, in O.S. 135 of 1983, allowing I.A.6.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants alleging that he has been in lawful possession of the property and that the defendants have been interfering with his possession. He filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. The defendants resisted that application.4. The Court below after hearing the parties, granted temporary injunction pending suit.5. The defendants, thereafter, filed an application under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. for reviewing the said order granting temporary injunction and for framing a tenancy issue and referring the same to the Tribunal under Section 133 of the Land Reforms Act.6. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff.7. The Court below, after hearing the parties, reviewed the order granting ad-interim temporary injun...
Seetharamakrishnaiah Setty Vs. Satyanarayana Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR579
Kulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by the Legal Representatives (LRs) of the Decree-Holder against the order dated 21-4-83 passed by the Civil Judge, Bellary, in Ex. Petition No. 336/79 closing the execution petition on the ground that it is fully satisfied.2. The deceased Seetharamakrishnaiah Setty and J. Drs. 1 to 4 are brothers. The deceased Decree-Holder instituted O.S. 44/74 against the J.Drs. for recovery of money. The decree was passed for Rs. 27,877-53 along with costs and future interest. The said decree has been put into execution by the L. Rs of the Decree-Holder in the present case.3. Judgment-Debtor 2 (JDr.2) by his counter and JDr. No. 3 by adopting the counter filed by JDr. 2 resisted the execution petition. The Court-below closed the execution by entering full satisfaction. Hence, the revision.4. Present J.Drs. had filed a suit O.S. 1/75 against the Decree-Holder for partition and possession of their share in the house. That suit came to be compromised by entering into a...
Hanumaiah Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR550
Hakeem, J.1. These petitions have come up before us on a reference made by Murlidher Rao, J, by his order dated July 30, 1985.2. Is order to appreciate the question raised in these petitions, it is necessary to state the material facts giving rise to these Writ Petitions. The petitioners are purchasers of certain extent of land in S Nos. 2 and 76 of Sulakunta village, Chikkaballapur Taluk, Kolar District. It is not disputed that these lands were attached as emoluments to the inferior village offices under the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1900, which stood abolished on and with effect from February 1, 1963, and consequently the said lands vested in the Stats Government. The sales in favour of the petitioners are dated 12-3-1968. 20-9-1967 and 23-6-1969, which are undoubtedly made after the coming into force of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (the Act) and before the amending Act came into force i.e. 7-8-1978.3. The Tahsildar initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »