Karnataka Court April 1999 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.
T.R. Srikantaiah Setty Vs. Balakrishna and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2953; 1999(5)KarLJ153
1. The defendant 1 has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court whereby it decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent 1 declaring him to be the absolute owner of the suit property and directed the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and has also awarded costs. The appellant is defendant 1 while the respondent 1 is the plaintiff and the respondent 2 is the second defendant.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he is the owner of the suit property and for delivery of the suit property for him and also for mesne profits from 4-7-1975 to the date of delivery of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 21-7-1975 from its previous owner Padmavathamma. The said Padmavathamma also attorned over the tenants occupying the suit premises to the plaintiff. Two of the tenants accepted the attornment and have been paying rents to...
Muniswamappa @ Kakanna Vs. the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2347; 1999(3)KarLJ613
ORDER1. In the course of the hearing of this writ petition, an interesting aspect of law relating to the substitution of a deceased litigant by the legal representative has arisen for determination. The brief facts are necessary for purpose of illustrating the points. Deceased Kakanna, the original applicant had filed an application before the Land Tribunal claiming occupancy rights and the Tribunal dismissed the application holding that Kakanna's claim was unjustified and that consequently, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Kakanna filed a writ petition before this Court assailing the correctness of that order and the case was transferred to the Appellate Authority which had then been set up by virtue of the requirement that all pending proceedings at that time must be transferred to the Appellate Authority for decision. At that stage, one Krishna Reddy appeared before the Appellate Authority on the basis of a power of attorney executed in his favou...
The Karnataka theosophical Federation (Registered), Bangalore Vs. Bala ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2930; 1999(4)KarLJ695
ORDER1. Petition arises from the judgment and order dated 18-12-1997, whereby the Court has directed the plaintiff to pay the Court fee on Rs. 20 lakhs, the market value of the suit property and to file separate valuation slip within a month.2. The Court below after considering the matter, opined that the relief claimed in the plaint to the effect that decree for declaration be granted in favour of the plaintiff, declaring plaintiff's title to the suit property as well as for the relief of recovery of possession of the property from the defendant squarely falls under Section 24-A of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and plaintiff has to pay the Court fee, according to the market value of the property. If further found that the value of the suit property is about 20 lakhs.3. The petitioner's Counsel, Sri K.M. Chandra Prasad submitted that the value of the property is a question of fact to be determined on evidence and, so the question of payment of Court fee as well as th...
Laxminarayanan Vs. Dr. Vinod and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ25
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dated 21-1-1998 whereby the First Appellate Court while admitting the appeal, granted stay order as prayed in I.A. II filed before it.2. I put the basic question to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner how revision is maintainable from this order as stay order does not amount to a case decided. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner emphatically tried to argue that order is revisable.3. On behalf of the respondent, my attention has been invited to a decision of this Court in the case of Katari Thippanna v S. Hastimul and Another, this Court has very clearly held that an order granting stay or vacating stay does not amount to a case decided.4. As such, in my opinion, as the order impugned does not amount to a case decided, the revision is misconceived. No doubt, it was open to the applicant at that time to have filed an application for vacation of stay order. Anyway, revision petition being misconceived, it is dismi...
M.S. Lakshminarayana Bhatta Vs. B.R. Shetty and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3495; 1999(6)KarLJ718
ORDER1. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel Jagannath Shetty for respondent 3. The advantage of the argument of learned Counsel for the other side could not be had as they were not present when the matter was taken up for hearing and disposal.2. The petitioner was the third party-applicant in the application filed under Section 47 read with Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code as an objector in Execution Case No. 103 of 1994 on the file of the Court below. By this revision he has challenged the executing Court's order dated 14-2-1997 passed dismissing his said application.3. The said application was made by the petitioner resisting sale of building property of judgment-debtor towards recovery of decretal amount. It was prayed therein to set aside the Court sale of the said property on the ground that it was already purchased by him for valuable consideration and in good faith from the judgment-debtor on 12-10-1994. The Trial Court by its considered order sought to be impugned has...
G.H. Nagarajaiah Setty and Another Vs. State by Hennur Police (Cod Pol ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)942; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)177; ILR1999KAR2388; 1999(3)KarLJ536
ORDER1. The short question that crops up for consideration in this petition is:'Whether the Magistrate has jurisdiction to direct the investigating agency to re-investigate the matter'?This question arises in the backdrop of a police complaint. The Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Bangalore, lodged a complaint against the accused/petitioners that, sanction to run a school by them had been obtained by creating fake documents and forgery. The said complaint was referred to the COD for investigation. The COD filed a 'B' Report. The learned Magistrate issued notice of this 'B' report to the complainant for which the complainant showed no interest. The third party filed an affidavit explaining certain circumstances bringing it to the notice of the Courts certain other facts. However, the accused persons committed fraud on the Government. The learned Magistrate acting upon these information supplied by the third party through his affidavit, directed the COD to re-investigate the matte...
The Corporation of the City of Belgaum Vs. Smt. Vijayalaxmi Narayan Wa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ43
ORDER1. Heard Sri V.M. Sheelavant for Sri Ravi B. Naik, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri R.U. Goulay, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The application under Order 21, Rule 32 was made for execution of decree for injunction. According to the revision petitioner he had obtained a decree for permanent injunction in O.S. No. 624 of 1983 permanently restraining the defendant from obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property either by dumping the material or by either other illegal modes. The decree-holder filed the application in execution against the present revision petitioner that on 4-11-1989 and 12-11-1989 officials of the judgment-debtor had come and put red soil and khadi stones on the open space belonging to the decree-holder and they have made the open space to the level of the tar road. The decree-holder alleged that the decree-holder and her husband had informed the workers of the judgment-debtor-Corporation about the permanent in...
M. Subraya Prabhu Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ47
ORDER1. Heard Sri Shivarama Bhat appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Counsel.2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19-1-1999 passed in Case No. ULC:SR: 308:76-77 (Padavu) and also against the order dated 25-2-1991 passed in ULC:SR:308:76-77 at Annexure-A and B to the writ petition. The order dated 25-2-1991 is the order declaring excess vacant land determined as stands unaltered. In pursuance of Order dated 25-2-1991 an award has been given on 19-1-1999 which is Annexure-A. By an order dated 25-2-1991 and 1.10 1/2 acres or 4470-20 was determined to be excess land. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner's agricultural land has wrongly been included while determining the excess land. Learned Counsel also contended that the Land Tribunal has declared this land to be agricultural land. The learned Counsel contended that when the Land Tribunal has declared it to be the agricultural land, the competent authority could not hold...
S.M. Rao and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3176; 1999(6)KarLJ450
ORDER1. The controversy raised in these writ petitions centers on the right of respondents 2 and 3 to draw service line for supply of electrical energy to the 4th respondent.2. The petitioners herein own various extents of land described in the writ petition in Siddedahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North. The 4th respondent is a Public Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of certain goods whose main consumers are Central and State Government. As per Order No. DE 87 EEB 92, Bangalore, dated 12th May, 1993 of the Government of Karnataka, the 4th respondent was sanctioned supply of additional power to an extent 500 KVA from the 2nd respondent on the basis of the recommendation of the 38th High Power Co-ordination Committee at its meeting held on 29-3-1993. The second respondent issued work order Annexure-G dated 27-5-1994, directing the 4th respondent to draw 66 KV H.T.U.G. cables for a distance of 3 kms., in terms of the condition made mention therein and also in com...
Smt. Chandbee Begum Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2673; 1999(6)KarLJ693
ORDER1. The petitioner claiming to be the wife of late Sri M.A. Shukur has filed this writ petition for a direction to the State Government to grant family pension.2. Admittedly, the petitioner married late M.A. Shukur on 23-9-1988 as per Shariat Muslim Personal Law. By that time the husband of the petitioner late Sri M.A. Shukur had retired from Government service on 31-3-1977.3. The question that now arises for consideration is whether the petitioner who married a retired Government servant is entitled for family pension?4. Rule 294 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules provides for family pension. Rule 294(v) reads as follows.-'Rule 294(v): No pension will be payable under this section. (a) x x x (b) x x x (c) x x x (d) x x x (e) to a person who is not a member of Government servant's family'. Prom the reading of that rule it is clear that if a person is not a member of the family of the Government servant is not entitled for any family pension. Admittedly, the petitioner married...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »