Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant236; ILR1989KAR3104; 1989(3)KarLJ497
1. Appellant was the plaintiff in the original suit before the trial Court and being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of that Court dismissing his suit for the reliefs claimed therein he has approached this Court. Respondents 1 and 2 are wife and husband respectively who were defendants 1 and 2 in the Court below. The 3rd respondent-defendant 3 is the Bangalore City Corporation. Parties would be referred to in this appeal as described in the original suit. Plaintiff and defendant 2 are owners in possession of the respective properties which are situated side by side. In fact it is the 1st defendant who is the owner of their property having inherited the same from her father Krishna Rao. The plaintiff was residing for some years prior to the suit at Nigeria on an assignment from the Government of India.His nephew living in his house property was managing it. When the 1st defendant succeeded to the estate of her father the property by the side of the plaintiff's property was only a g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1990CriLJ1001; 1990(3)KarLJ34
ORDER1. The above Criminal petition is directed against the order dated 11-8-1988, passed by the Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur in Criminal Appeal No. 23/1985 confirming the order of conviction dated 19-10-1985 made in C.C. No. 905 of 1983, on the file of the J.M.F.C., Kadur. 2. A private complaint was filed by the father of Smt. Suman against accused No. 1 Revanasiddaswamy and his brother Veerabhadraswamy. The allegations are that A. 1 married his daughter Suman first and thereafter he married one Gayatridevi, a Lecturer in Kannada in the Junior College Tarikere. Complainant is a retired Principal of the Kannada Primary Training College, Hubli. Smt. Suman was working as the Tele-communication Office Assistant at Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Hubli. In the month of March, 1983, Sri V. V. Mathad, a close friend of the complainant approached the complainant stating that there is a proposal of marriage to his daughter Suman, in connection with which he had received a letter from Accused N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR390; 1990(3)KarLJ520
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought for issuing a direction in the nature of Mandamus to the respondents to stop excavation of earth from the civic amenity area marked in red ink in Annexure-A to the petition.2. Respondents 1 and 3 have filed separate statement of objections. Respondent No. 2 has made available the records of the case and also the sanctioned layout plan.3. The case of the petitioner is that on the installation of the sewerage treatment plant in the civic amenity site which is opposite to the house of the petitioner facing 60' road running north to south will result in health hazard to the residents of the locality. He has specifically contended that he made a representation in this regard and his representation was not heeded to. According to his case the installation of a sewerage treatment plant results in chemical and biological hazards affecting the health of the people at large. The chemi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant363; ILR1990KAR467; 1989(2)KarLJ382
ORDER1. The Telecom Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited represented by its Secretary, Mangalore, is the petitioner herein questioning the impugned notice and notification dated 13-9-1985 issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner and Competent Authority, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, who is respondent 1 herein.2. A vacant land measuring 86 cents situate in R.S. No. 714 and T.S. No. 177, northern portion of Attavar of Mangalore lying within Mangalore Corporation originally belonged to the family of respondent 2. A declaration was filed under S. 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). On receipt of the said declaration made by T. Rajanandan Walke son of late T. Krishna Walke not only on his behalf but also on behalf of 10 other members of the same family dated 16-6-1982, an endorsement was issued on 11-8-1983 by respondent 1 stating that on a scrutiny of the declaration made under S. 6(1) of the Act by T. Rajanandan Walke for and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR3091; 1989(2)KarLJ434
Rama Jois, Ag. C.J. 1. This appeal is presented under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act by the appellant aggrieved by the order of the District Court, Belgaum, granting letter of administration with the copy of the will stated to have been executed by one Girijabai, annexed in favour of the first respondent,2. The facts of the case, in brief, are these: One Girijabai was the daughter of one Yeshwant. Two of his brothers were Gajanana and Muralidhar. The three brothers are the sons of one Sambarao Gunjikar. Girijabai is the sole daughter of Yeshwant. She was given in marriage to one Shankar Rao. He and Vishwanath Deshpande, the first respondent, were the sons of Deshpande. Girijabai died on 23-7-1984. According to the first respondent, late Girijabai had executed a will on 21-7-1984. Under the will the properties specified therein are fixed deposits in banks, jewellery and other articles. They were all required to be distributed in favour of Prabha and Jyothi, who are the two dau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1991(62)FLR376]; ILR1990KAR550; (1991)IILLJ217Kant
ORDER1. Both these petitions relate to the same subject matter. Therefore, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1836/89 joined service under the 1st respondent on 7th September, 1957 as a Research Assistant in the Oriental Research Institute of the 1st respondent. Initially he was appointed temporarily but his services subsequently came to be terminated and he was appointed regularly as Research Assistant Class II with effect from 1st June 1965 and thereafter he was promoted as Research Assistant Class-I. 3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 12317/89 was appointed as Research Assistant Class II on 1st June, 1965, under the 1st respondent to work in the Oriental research Institute. Thereafter he was promoted as Research Assistant Class-I in the Institute of Kannada Studies as the Oriental Research Institute came to be bifurcated into two. 4. On 21st January, 1975 the Syndicate of the Mysore University passed a Resolution as per Annexur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR522
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. On the previous date of hearing this Writ Petition was heard. However it came to be adjourned on the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to enable the petitioner to place on record the developments that have taken place subsequent to filing of the petition. Accordingly, further hearing of the petition was adjourned by the order dated 8-9-1989. Consequently, the petitioner has filed the additional statement bringing to the notice of the Court the hardship that would be caused to her in case her admission to the Government Medical College, Mysore is cancelled and she is transferred to other University. On the additional statement of facts filed by the petitioner the respondents are also heard.2. The petitioner secured less than 50% marks in PUC in Physics subject. Therefore she continued her studies for B.Sc., she passed B.Sc., with C.B.Z. subjects securing 74.1% marks and scoring 50% in each of the subjects i.e., C.B.Z. Thereafter, she sought for admi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR2882; 1989(2)KarLJ585
M. Rama Jois, Actg. C.J.1. In this Criminal Petition presented under S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short), which is referred to a Division Bench under S. 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act 1961, the following three questions of law arise for consideration : (1) Whether in a petition presented under S. 438 of the Code to the High Court or the Court of Sessions, the court has no power to direct the grant of bail, if the petitioner apprehends his arrest by the police on the allegation that he had committed an offence of murder (2) Whether an order made under S. 438 of the Code for the release of a person, if arrested, could be limited in point of time and (3) Whether a petition under S. 438 of the Code is not maintainable before the High Court if a similar application has been made and rejected by the Court of Session 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are these : The petitioner made an application under S. 438 of the Code before the Sessions Judge, Coorg Distri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR3230; 1989(2)KarLJ469
K.A. Swami, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a decree passed on 19th February 1988 by the I Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore, in R.A.No. 84/86.2. The respondent obtained an order of eviction in H.R.C. No. 214/76 against the father of the appellant. That order of eviction was put into execution. The appellant resisted the application on the ground that he has been in possession of the property other than the one covered under the eviction order passed in H.R.C.214/76 on the file of the I Additional Munsiff, Mangalore and therefore, under the guise of eviction order passed in H.R.C.No. 214/76, he should not be dispossessed from the property which does not form part of the order of eviction.3. The Executing Court rejected the application holding that the appellant had no locus standi to maintain the same by the order dated 10-7-1986 passed in Ex Case No. 185/86. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant went up in appeal in R.A.No. 84/86 before the Civil Judge, Mangalore, whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant87; ILR1989KAR3027; 1989(2)KarLJ540
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 4th January, 1989 of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 21344/1982. In the course of this order, we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the writ petition.2. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned single Judge are as follows : The City Improvement Trust Board of Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as C.I.T.B.) which had been constituted under the provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as the Improvement Act) prepared a development scheme to bring into existence one of the many extensions of the City of Bangalore. That came to be known, first as Palace Upper Orchards/Sadashivanagar and later came to be named as Rajamahal Vilas Extension. The writ petitioners, numbering 30, are all persons to whom sites are allotted by the C.I.T.B. and on which they have constructed their residential houses in the Rajamahal Vilas Extension....
Tag this Judgment!