Karnataka Court February 1994 Judgments
Smt. Nirmala and Others Vs. Smt Rukminibai and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Kant247; ILR1994KAR1078; 1994(2)KarLJ62
ORDERMirdhe, J. 1. Appellants herein, the defendants in the trial court, have preferred this appeal under S. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decreedated 8-2-1988 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum in Original Suit No. 12 of 1982 decreeing the suit of the respondents for declaration and possession of the suit schedule properties. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents fully and perused the records. 3. Respondents filed a suit against the appellants on the following averments : That the suit properties were owned and possessed by one Narayanrao Subhanji Mugalikar who was the husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff No. 2. He died intestate in CTS No. 2338 on 21-12-1978. On his death, respondents 1 and 2 who are the widow and daughter of Narayan Mugalikar succeeded to his estate as Class-I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and as such they become the owners of the suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and Others Vs. Smt. Vidya R. Bijur and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR593; [1994]209ITR803(KAR); [1994]209ITR803(Karn)
ORDER SET ASIDE BY COURT--Fresh opportunity to revenue based on Gautam's case.Held :Impugned purchase order had been set aside by Single Judge for reasons other than mentioned in Gautam's case. Division Bench sustaining order of Single Judge on the basis of Gautam's case for the first time. Therefore, to be deemed that Form 37-I was filed on the date of signing the judgment by Division Bench. Held :(i) The Single Judge when he passed the order on 15-12-1992 did not declare the purchase order as null and void on the ground that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not given to the concerned parties, meaning thereby the single judge had not applied the ratio of the decision in Gautam's case for quashing the impugned order. Therefore, there was no occasion for the revenue to start further proceedings under Chapter XX-C within a period of two months from the date of judgment, i.e., 15-12-1992. That stage would be reached for the revenue only on the date on which the present judgment i...
Tag this Judgment!N. Narasimhaiah Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Kant224; ILR1994KAR955; 1994(2)KarLJ33
ORDER1. The petitioner and responent-4 claim to be the joint owners of certain extent of land in Sy. Nos. 12, 13 and 14, in all measuring 15 acres 26 guntas, situated in Vaddarapalya village, Uttarahally Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.2. Under preliminary notification D/-11-8-1987, published in the Gazette dated 13-8-1987, copy of which is marked as Annex. A, the said lands were notified for acquisition. Under the same notification several other lands belonging to others were also notified by the second respondent for acquisition for the purpose of formation of a layout by the third respondent-Co-operative Society. The declaration under S. 6(1) was made on 30-6-1988, published in the Gazette on 21-7-1988, copy of which is marked as Annexure-B.3. The case of the petitioner in this petition is since the award, in terms of S. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has not been made within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration by force of S. 11-A of the said Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Pakeera Moolya Vs. Mari Bhat
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR809; 1994(3)KarLJ281
ORDERRajendra Babu, J 1. These two Petitions arise out of an order made by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of Dooma Moolya and Krishna Moolya who are the legal representatives of Manku Moolya and Pakeera Moolya. So far as Manku Moolya is concerned, the Tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of land comprised in survey number 33/3, measuring about 1 acre 17 cents.In regard to Pakeera Moolya, petitioner in Writ Petition 17527 of 1991, the Tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of following items:-Survey No. Extent31-2A 0-8231-2C 0-8217-7B2 0-2017-8B 0-1313-3 0-05132C 0-0233-2 1-2633-3 0-7413-2A 0-692. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner in Writ Petition 17528/1991 that the Tribunal based its decision on the statement of the petitioner's father, entries in the Levy Register for the year 1973-74 and certain proceedings before the Tahsildar in relation to entries made in the RTCs. It is urged that the Tribunal could not have relied upon the proceedi...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Engineering Institution Vs. the President, the District Consume ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Kant329
ORDER1. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, having its office under the name of `CAD POINT' situate at Silver Jubilee Building, K. R. Circle, Bangalore. It is an educational institution imparting computer education in various fields of software engineering. As on today a good number of students are undergoing training in computer science. The institution consists of very competent teaching staff. One Mr. M. K. Yuaraj was the workingPrincipal cum Co-ordinator. On some false complaint he was arrested and detained in, prison. In his absence, an order came to be passed on the complaint lodged before the District Consumer Forum. An order came to be passed as per Annexure-D dated 25-9-1993 whereby the petitioner was directed to refund to the complainants within one month from the date of the order, amounts paid by them, as shown at internal page-4 (para-8 of the order), with a further direction that petitioner should pay each complainant a sum of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Engineering Institution Vs. the President, the District Consume ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-1994
Reported in: 1996(6)KarLJ459
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J. 1. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, having its office under the name of 'CAD POINT' situated at Silver Jubilee Building, K.R. Circle, Bangalore. It is an educational institution imparting computer education in various fields of software engineering. As of today a good number of students are undergoing training in computer science. The institution consists of very competent teaching staff. One Mr. M. K. Yuaraj was the working Principal-cum-Co-ordinator. On some false complaint he was arrested and detained in prison. In his absence, as order came to be passed on the complaint lodged before the District Consumer Forum. An order came to be passed as per Annexure-D dated 25.9.1993 whereby the petitioner was directed to refund to the complainants within one month from the date of the order, amounts paid by them, as shown at internal page-4 (para-8 of the order), with a further direction that petitioner should pay each co...
Tag this Judgment!J.V. Karkad Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR911; 1994(1)KarLJ522
ORDERRajendra Babu, J 1. This Petition is directed against an order made by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent No. 5, Respondent No. 5 had filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of Survey, No. 42 of Nitte Village. He showed the landlord of the land as C.S.I. Trust Association (Ex.U.S.M.C. Trust Association). Respondent No. 5 described his profession to be of Pastor. The pahani disclosed that the cultivator is Basel Mission Church right from the year 1967-68 onwards and through its present Administrator Rev. 'so and so.' It obviously means that the lands were held by the Pastor for and on behalf, of the owners of the land and he was not cultivating the land on his own as a tenant- In the circumstances, when the Pastor was not cultivating the land on his own but held land for and on behalf of the owner as Administrator thereto merely administering the affairs, question of his being either a 'tenant' or 'deemed tenant' would not arise at all...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalakrishna Sharma Vs. Jyothi Nagaram Chick Venkatashamaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR821
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J. 1. This Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is by the petitioner against the order made by the Additional District Judge, Kolar, in Misc. A. No. 30 of 1988 disposed of on 1.4.1992 setting aside the order of temporary injunction passed on I.A.No. I in O.S.No. 37 of 1987 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Chinthamani.2. The petitioner Gopalakrishna Sharma is the plaintiff and Jyothi Nagaram Chicka Venkatashamaiah and S.V. Subbanna, respondents 1 and 2 herein, are defendants 1 and 2 respectively in the suit in O.S.No. 37 of 1987. For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein are referred he re in afterwards by their ranks in the original suit.3. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No. 175 of 1985 on the file of the Civil Judge, Kolar, against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit premises till he is evicted under the due process of law...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›