Karnataka Court July 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.
L.R. Naik Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR2521
ORDERPrem Chand Jain, C.J.1. The petitioners are members of Scheduled Castes. Through this petition, they have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 4 and in particular : (a) proviso to Ex-plantation to Section (4)(1) of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Act, 1983, (Act 20/1985)(hereinafter referred to a 'the principal Act') as amended by the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1986 (Act 3/1986) (to be referred to as the 'Amendment Act') and ; (b) proviso to Section 3(2) of the Amendment Act and the corresponding like provisos in Sections 140 and 141 of the Principal Act.2. For facility of reference, it would be appropriate to know the relevant provisions of the Principal Act and the said provisions after the amendment. They read as under :-'Section 4. Declaration of Mandal and establishment of Mandal Panchayats : (1) Subject to the general or...
Shafiulla Khan Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR2903; 1987(3)KarLJ470
Patil, J.1. In this appeal, the accused-appellants have sought to challenge the legality and correctness of the conviction passed on them.2. Accused-appellants Shafiulla Khan @ Jungal Shafi (A-1) and Saleem Afsar (A-2) were tried together by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, in S.C. No. 75 of 1984. While A-1 was charged with the commission of the offence of murder and simple hurt punishable under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. A-2 was charged with the commission of abetment of murder punishable under Sections 302 R/W 109 IPC. A-1 is found guilty of the offence under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and R.I. for 2 years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 6 months, with a direction further that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. A-2 is found guilty of the offence under Sections 302 R/W 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10.000/-, and...
Kareem Baig Vs. Dr. Mohammad Khizar Hussain
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR631; 1988(1)KarLJ227
Bopanna, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question touching the right of the landlord to seek a decree for possession against his tenant in respect of his premises to which the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') applies.2. In this Judgment, the parties are referred to by the position assigned to them in the trial Court. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:One Dr. AM Hussain (hereinafter referred to as the 'owner') was the owner of the premises, in question bearing Municipal No. 1392 (new No. 859) situate in Masjid Mohalla of Ramanagaram Town. The premises in question will be, hereinafter referred to as the 'suit premises'. It was admittedly covered by the provisions of the Act. Dr. Ali Hussain had two wives. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sons, plaintiffs 4 to 6 are the daughters and plaintiffs 7 and 8 are the two wives of Dr. Ali Hussain.3. The owner had filed an eviction petition against defendants 1 and 3 in H.R.C.No. 13/1973 on the ...
Papanna and ors. Vs. H. Dodde Gowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Kant61; ILR1987KAR2898
Swami, J.1. On 10-7-1987 an order was p assed stating that no further orders were necessary. However, having regard to the submission made on both sides that this is an appeal in which further orders are required to be passed, we call the order dated 10-7-1987.2.: There is a request made by the learned Civil Judge C.J.M., Mandya for sending the entire records of this appeal along with the records of O. S. No. 1/ 1979 on the file of the District Judge, Mandya, out of which the appeal in question arises'3. R.A. No. 107/1979 is pending before the learned Civil Judge, Mandya to whom some of the parties to this appeal are also said to be parties. The aforesaid records are requested to be sent on the ground that the same are required in the aforesaid R.A. No. 107/1979 pending on the file of the Civil Judge, Mandya. It is also submitted by the appellants before us that the subject-matter of the appeal before us is somewhat connected with the subject-matter in the appeal in R.A. No. 107/1979 p...
Nageshwar Adiga Vs. Kaveramma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR860; 1988(1)KarLJ72
K.A. Swami, J.1. Learned Counsel Sri B.K. Manjunath, files power for the appellants. Sri Hande, Advocate, has also given his consent. Accordingly the vakalath of Sri B.K. Manjunath is accepted and he is permitted to appear for the appellants.2. This appeal by defendants 1,2,5 and 7 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21-8-1975 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Udupi in O.S. No. 18/1970.3. The learned trial Judge has passed a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of half share of the plaintiff who was respondent-1 in the appeal and who died on 12-2-1987.4. In this appeal, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff claimed half share in the suit schedule properties on the basis that she was the heir of her husband late Koteshware Adiga who died as a member of the Mitakshara coparcenery consisting of himself and defendants 1 to 3 leaving an interest in the Mitakshara coparcenery property and she was entitled to have the share of her husband partitioned.5. T...
Timmakka Kom Venkanna Naik Vs. Land Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR3336; 1987(2)KarLJ337
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The owner of the lands in question has filed this Writ Appeal against the dismissal of her W. P. No. 6351/1976. The lands are Sy. Nos. 138/1 and 137/1 of Agsur village, Ankola Taluk, Uttar Kannada District. Admittedly the lands were leased in favour of one Hammi kom Somagouda. She died on 6-9-1972. It is an admitted fact that she left no heirs. However, the third respondent (Subba Ayugouda) claimed that there was a Will left by Hammi under which the tenancy right of the deceased was bequeathed to him. Basing his right under the Will, the third respondent filed O.S. No. 156 of 1973 in the Court of the Munsiff at Karwar for a permanent injunction against the petitioner in which there was an order of temporary injunction. Since the question of tenancy was involved, the said issue was referred to the Land Tribunal for determination. It is said that petitioner also filed an application before the Land Tribunal seeking registration as an occupant by mistake and the sa...
Syndicate Bank Vs. R.S.R. Engineering Works
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR2654; 1987(2)KarLJ177
ORDERP.P. Bopanna, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants.2. A question on Court Fee payable by the appellant-Bank has been raised in these two appeals. The office is of the view that the appellants have to pay Court Fee on ad-valorem basis since the relief against respondents 2 and 3 has to be valued as per the provisions of Section 49 of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (in short the 'Act').3. The suits against respondents 2 and 3 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 35, 157-68/- were dismissed by the Trial Court but the suits against respondents 1 and 4 were decreed although the appellants had prayed for a decree jointly arid severally against respondents 1 to 4. The appellants have come up in these appeals seeking a decree against respondents 2 and 3 jointly and severally with the other two respondents. The relief claimed by the appellant Bank against respondents 2 and 3 is the same as claimed by it in the trial Court. Therefore, the provisions of Secti...
Digambar Rao and Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR3345
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. W.A. No. 300/87 is by the petitioners in W.P. No. 2052/87. The appeal is against the order rejecting the Writ Petition in other respects and restricting its admission for the limited purpose of considering the validity of the Explanation to Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads (Election of Adhyaksha & Upadhyaksha) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules'). By this order the learned Single Judge upheld the validity of other provisions of the Rules. W.A. No. 340/87 is by the petitioner in W.P. No. 2301/87 against the order dismissing the Writ Petition.2. The common question raised in both the Writ Petitions has to be decided in W. A. No. 340/8 7. Therefore, if is not necessary to go into the contention raised by Mr. Ron in WA. 300/87, that the learned Single Judge could not have restricted the admission of the Writ Petition to one particular question only. Similarly, it is also not necessary to decide the question whether an appeal lies at this stage...
Muniswamy Vs. Laxmakka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Kant67; ILR1987KAR2666
1. This is defendant's second appeal. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule 11 items of properties.2. The undisputed facts are that one Tammanna had two sons, Papanna and the defendant Muniswami. The plaintiff is the wife of Papanna. Papanna died before the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3.According to the plaintiff, she is entitled to the share in the joint family properties of Papanna her husband, and the defendant and that would be one-half.4. The defendant contended that Papanna pre-deceased Tammanna; the plaintiff went wayward. Tammanna advised the plaintiff repeatedly; but she did not mend her conduct and therefore Tammanna gave the plaintiff suit items 4, 5 and 10 to herself and thereby the plaintiff got divided from the joint family and commenced residing separately. Suit item No.11 is not the joint family property. Other properties have been acqui...
Krishne Gowda Vs. Ningegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR2883
K.A. Swami, J.1. This appeal by the 4th defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14-11-1986 passed by the Civil Judge, Chikmagalur, in O.S. No. 56 of 1980.2. That was a suit brought by the 1st respondent/plaintiff for partition and possession of his share in the joint family properties.3. There is no dispute that the plaintiff and the defendants are the members of the joint family. The joint family owned Vast extent of properties as mentioned in Schedule 'A' to the plaint. As far as the appellant is concerned, he claimed items 35, 16 and 17 of Schedule 'A' properties as his self acquired. The Trial Court has held that Items 15, 16 and 17 of Schedule 'A' properties are also the joint family properties.4. The only grievance of the Appellant/Defendant No. 4 in this appeal is that the Trial Court is not justified, on the evidence on record, in holding that Items 15, 16 and 17 properties arc also the joint family properties, whereas they are his (4th defendant) self acqui...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »