Karnataka Court April 1994 Judgments
Deity Sri Shanimahatma Swamy and Another Vs. Sri C. Gangaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-22-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Kant303; 1994(4)KarLJ11
1. The above appeals are directed against the order dated 25-2-1993 on I.A. No. 38 in O.S. No. 45 of 1988 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. 2. I.A. No. 38 was filed by the first, defendant in the suit under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of temporary injunction restraining the appellants from conducting any festivals or functions in the temple and receiving any donations offerings by way of cash or kind from the devotees and public. The appellants in M.F.A. No. 1255 of 1993 are (i) The Deity Sri Shanimahatma Swamy and (ii) the second appellant, the heriditary Dharmadhikari and Archak (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs'). The appellantsin M.F.A. No. 313 of 1994 are defendants 28 to 30 in the suit who are the brothers of the second appellant in M.F.A. No. 1255 of 1993. M.F.A. No. 1255 of 1993 was filed on 14-7-1993. M.F.A. No. 313 of 1994, against the very same order, was filed on ...
Tag this Judgment!Kumaravelu Vs. Kanakarathnam Chetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-22-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1477
Murgod, J. 1. Defendants 1 and 2 in Original Suit No. 4092 of 1980 are the appellants before this Court and the plaintiffs in that Suit No. 4092 of 1980 are respondents 1 to 5.Defendants 3 and 4 in the trial Court are respondents 6 and 7 in this Appeal. The parties are hereinafter referred by their ranks in the trial Court in this Appeal for the sake of convenience.2. Plaintiff No. 1 is the husband of plaintiff No. 2 and plaintiffs 3 to 5 are their children. They instituted the suit alleging that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the owners of the Cinema Theatre known as 'Opera House' (New Opera Talkies) Municipal Old No. 24, Residency Road, Bangalore and new No. 57 (old No. 101), Brigade Road, Civil Station, Bangalore and also, all the machineries, projectors, generators, electric motor, electrical fittings, screens etc., in the said theatre more fully described in the schedule to the plaint. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 under the Lease Deeds dated 27-9-1975 and 1-10-1975 had leased out the schedule t...
Tag this Judgment!Hubli Manekattuva Sahakari Sangha Ltd. Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-oper ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-22-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1913; 1994(4)KarLJ288
ORDERMohan Kumar, J. 1. Issue Rule,2. The Petitioner herein is a Co-operative Society, represented by its President. The Society went into liquidation and as per proceedings dated 27-7-1972, the Society was ordered to be wound up. A Liquidator, who is a Departmental Officer, was appointed to administer the affairs of the Society. It is seen from the Exhibits produced that the 2nd respondent after conducting due and detailed enquiry issued Annexure-C order dated 24-4-1989 to rescind the order of liquidation and revived the Society. The Liquidator, the 2nd respondent herein, was allowed to be in office in charge of the Society. In view of the fact that the order of liquidation stood revoked, the 2nd respondent thereafter represented the Committee of Management of the Society and was administering the affairs of the Society. Annexure-C order was issued under Section 72(3) of the Co-operative Societies Act.3. Thereafter, between 1-4-1989 and 4-6-1989, the Liquidator enrolled new members an...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Idinabba Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-21-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant49; ILR1994KAR1229; 1994(4)KarLJ263
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J. 1. M. F. A. No. 2502 of 1988 and M.F.A. (F.R.) No. 9154 of 1988 arise out of the common judgment and award made by the II Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore, in L.A.C. Nos. 1 of 1980 and 171 of 1978 respectively on 14-6-1988.2. B.I. Idinabba is the appellant in both these appeals. He has sought for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the compensation awarded by the learned Civil Judge is on the lower side.3. So far as M.F.A. (F.R.) No. 9154 of 1988 is concerned, it is seen from the order sheet that the appellant has preferred a Regular First Appeal against the judgment and award made by the learned Civil Judge in L.A.C. No. 171 of 1978. The amount involved in the appeal is less than rupees one lakh; therefore, the appeal has to lie before the District Judge, Managlore. This appeal was directed to be posted along with M.F.A. No. 2502 of 1988 by an order made on 17-11-1979. However, the appellant prays that since M.F.A. No. 2502 of 1988 has been admitted...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnabai Vs. Krishnarao Janantrao Desai and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-21-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant172; ILR1994KAR1468; 1994(4)KarLJ384
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23-10-1990 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Gadag on I.A. No. I in F.D.P. 23/89. By the said order the Principal Munsiff, Gadag allowed I.A.I. filed by the instant petitioner by directing to call back the records sent to the Deputy Commissioner on 2-1-1990 for effecting partition.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition, briefly stated, are as under:Plaintiff -- Krishnabai (present revision petitioner) filed O.S. No. 63/84 against four defendants (present respondents-1 to 4) praying for a decree for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit properties. The suit was initially contested by defendants-1 and 2. However, later the same was compromised. A compromise decree in terms of the compromise was passed on 8-1-1986. The terms of the decree, relevant for consideration are as under : (Vernacular Matter Omitted -- Ed.) According to the decree-holder, defendants-1 and 2 failed to pa...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Munireddy Vs. B.K. Lakshmaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-21-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1740; 1994(4)KarLJ99
Murgod, J. 1. Defendants 1 and 2 in Original Suit No. 582 of 1982 are the appellants in this appeal, plaintiff in O.S.No.582 of 1982 is respondent No 1. Defendants 3 to 6 and 7 to 9 are respondents 2 to 8. Parties in this Appeal are referred to by their ranks in the trial Court.2. Plaintiff - B.K. Lakshmaiah filed a Suit for declaration that he is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with costs and other reliefs as deemed fit.3. The schedule property is described as portion of Survey No. 3 of Bommmanahalli village, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring one acre twenty eight guntas with boundaries given in the schedule with standing crops of horse-gram etc.4. The plaint averments are that the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 6 form members of a joint Hindu family and they possessed joint family properties of which the plaint schedu...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhara Murthy Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-21-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1244
M. Ramakrishna, J.1. The petitioner in this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has sought to quash the order (Annexure K, C and B) dated 1-1-1992, 16-9-1991 and 26-6-1991 passed by respondents 2 to 4 herein respectively, for the reasons stated therein.2. A few facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Petition are as follows:-The petitioner is the owner of a part of an agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 47 of Srigandhadakavalu village, Yeshawantapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. There was a partition amongst the members of his family and the ancestors of respondent-7 as disclosed in detail in Revision Petition No. 191 of 1991 presented by the petitioner before the Tribunal, respondent-2 herein. It has come on record that subsequent to the partition, respondent-7 got the land measured and phoded as 47/1A and 47/1B by the Assistant Director of Land Records and Survey Settlement, without notice to the petitioner and while doing so, the land measur...
Tag this Judgment!Devikarani Vs. Venkatesha Sastry
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-21-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1444; 1994(5)KarLJ99
Murgod, J. 1. These Appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No. 6604 of 1980 on the file of VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. They are clubbed and heard together and are disposed of by this common Judgment.2. Regular First Appeal No. 143 of 1983 is filed by the defendant in Original Suit No. 6604 of 1980 against the judgment and decree allowing the suit.3. Regular First Appeal No. 169 of 1983 is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree in Original Suit No. 6604 of 1980 confining to those points wherein her prayers for grant of certain reliefs are disallowed. The parties are hereafter referred to by their original ranks in the trial Court.4. Plaintiff Smt. Devikarani filed Original Suit No. 2584 of 1979 originally in the Court of First Munsiff at Bangalore. After the establishment of the City Civil Court, the suit came to be numbered as Original Suit No. 6604 of 1980. Plaintiff prayed for reliefs of permanent and mandatory injun...
Tag this Judgment!M.D. Muthu and ors. Vs. Rev. D.P. Shettian
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-21-1994
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3663; 1996(7)KarLJ859
ORDERK.B. Navadgi, J.1. In this matter, complainants 1 to 6 have produced documentary evidence marked as Exs. P.1 to P.8. They have to adduce oral evidence.2. The matter relates to the criminal contempt committed by the accused, of this Court and the Courts subordinate to this Court in which judicial proceedings between the complainants 1 to 6 and others and the accused and others are pending.3. The accused has come forward to tender unqualified and unconditional apology with a prayer to accept the same and purge him of the contempt.4. We have heard Sri B.P. Holla, Learned Counsel for complainants 1 to 6 and Sri V. Tarakaram, the Learned Senior Counsel for the accused, on the question as to whether the apology the accused wants to tender should be accepted and if so in what form. We have taken the assistance of the Learned Advocate General to decide the question.5. We have perused the apology placed on record by the accused in the form of his affidavit for our perusal and acceptance.6....
Tag this Judgment!Azmathulla Khan Vs. Thankamma Mathews
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-20-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1665
Krishnan, J. 1. The appellant was the defendant before the 10th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in Original Suit No. 923 of 1980. That was a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that the agreement to sell entered into between her and the defendant dated 12-11-1974 stood cancelled and for recovery of possession of the suit property in respect of which the agreement to sell had been entered and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,870/- being the damages for use and occupation of the said property with a prayer for a further direction to enquire into the future mesne profits, under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC. The suit had been originally instituted before the Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore and had been numbered as 29 of 1975 and it was pending as on the date of formation of the Court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore and thereafter came to be numbered as Original Suit No. 923 of 1980 and was ultimately disposed of by the 10th Addl. City Civil Judge. The learned Civil Judge granted the p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »