Karnataka Court October 1994 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.
State of Karnataka Vs. Veeranagouda Mallikarjunagouda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant361; ILR1995KAR990; 1994(5)KarLJ266
1. This is a defendant's second appeal. The State of Karnataka has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 30-6-1982 passed by Civil Judge, Gadag in Regular Civil Appeal No. 91/83, reversing the trial Court judgment and decree dated 28-11-1983 passed by the Munsiff Ron in O.S. 7/83, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the plaintiff-respondent's suit and the Appellate Court after having reversed the trial Court decree, decreed the plaintiff claim for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was born on 28-11-1952 and not on 1st of June 1949.2. Brief facts of the case are:--That the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration that the allegations to the effect that he was born on 28-11-1952 at Abbigeri Taluk, Ron. His parents and members of his family at the time of his birth were uneducated. His father was agriculturist and as such on account of their being uneducated nobody intimated the date of birth of the plaintiff to the concerned authority and so it...
S. Manohar Vs. E.K. Govindaraja Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3246; 1995(1)KarLJ81
N.D.V. Bhat, J.1. This Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 24-9-1988 passed by the XIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No. 10381/1984. By the said judgment, the learned Additional City Civil Judge has dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. A few facts necessary for the disposal of this Appeal, briefly stated, are as under:Plaintiff filed a suit at O.S.No. 10381/1984 praying for a decree for permanent injunction on the allegation that he was in lawful possession of the suit property as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. It is his case that he had also paid an amount of Rs. 80,000/-by way of advance. According to him he spent considerable amount for the interior decoration of the shop premises and for advertisement and also installed machineries, besides the stock of cassettes and records worth about Rs. 50,000/-. He has given the details in that behalf in para-5 of the plaint. According to plaintiff, he had great regard and respect f...
Parameshwaraiah Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3464; 1995(4)KarLJ650
ORDERSaldanha, J1. The petitioner in this case has assailed the correctness of an order dated 7.7.1994 passed by the respondent No. 1 - Deputy Commissioner of Shimoga. A few facts require to be stated.2. The petitioner is a resident of that Town and claims to be in possession of a small plot of land which admittedly measures approximately 20 ft x 40 ft., on which, according to him, he has been residing and running a canteen since about the years 1965-1966. It is his case that pursuant to certain requests made by him, that the Municipal Council passed a Resolution on 4.10.1990 being Subject No. 144 granting the property in question to the petitioner provided he pays the prevailing market rate. It is essential to record here that this decision was preceded by the petitioner filing a suit before the Civil Court whereby he had prayed that he should not be dispossessed from the premises. The petitioner failed in that effort as also in the subsequent proceedings right up to the High Court. I...
Ashok K. Babu Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR161; 1995(1)KarLJ279
ORDERSaldanha, J 1. This is a Writ Petition filed in the year 1992. The petitioner was an allottee of a house in category 'A' of one of the Karnataka Housing Boards' Schemes. He had paid an initial amount of Rs. 22,500/- on 24.9.1988. The petitioner was required to pay the subsequent instalment of Rs. 67,500/- by 31.12.1988. This was extended twice to 31.3.1989 and 30.6.1989. Inspite of this, the instalment was not paid. Simultaneously, the second instalment due on 30.4.1989 was extended by a period of six months to 31.10.1989, but the petitioner failed to pay it. As far as the third instalment of Rs. 56,250/- was concerned, which was due on 30.8.1989, the petitioner was granted two extensions up to 30.5.1990 and then up to 31.12.1990 inspite of which he failed to pay these instalments. In these circumstances, therefore, apart from the initial payment of Rs. 22,500/-, the petitioner had paid none of the instalments due from him despite the grant of several extensions. The Housing Board...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›