Karnataka Court June 1989 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.
K. Venkatachiapathy Setty Vs. K. Radhakrishna Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR2062
Ramakrishna, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 13-6-1988 passed by the 14th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O.S.No. 2536 of 1983.2. in this appeal, we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the trial Court.3. The plaintiff filed the above suit against defendants 1 to 6 seeking for declaration that he is the owner of the plaint schedule property and the settlement deed dated 7-10-1976 executed by defendant-1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 is not binding on the plaintiff, for mandatory injunction to direct defendants 1 and 2 to effect registration of the document dated 18-7-1975 executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-4 and, on their failure to do so, to direct the said document to be registered by the Court, for permanent Injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from collecting rents from defendants 4 to 6 or in the alternative to restra...
Giridharilal and ors. Vs. Pratap Rai Mehta and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR2491; 1989(2)KarLJ109
ORDER1. This is a petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code for short). The petitioners have prayed to recall the order dated 4-11-1988 made by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 398/88 and to quash the private complaint lodged by respondent-1 against them taken on file by the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City in PCR No. 87/88. 2. On hearing Shri Santosh Hegde, learned senior Counsel for the petitioners, notice was directed to respondent-1 regarding admission and orders. Learned High Court Government Pleader was requested to assist the Court in examining the maintainability or otherwise of the petition. 3. The record is perused. The learned senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader are heard. 4. The question that arises for consideration and determination is : (1) Whether the petition is maintainable 5. The facts relevant to be referred to and noticed are ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›