Karnataka Court July 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.
K. Jayamma and Others Vs. Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3250; 1999(5)KarLJ554
ORDER1. In these batch of writ petitions, the prayer made by the petitioners is to direct the respondent 1-Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, to enter the names of petitioners in the mutation register and record of rights in respect of schedule mentioned lands.2. The case of the petitioners are that they are residents of Jayanagar, Bangalore-11 and they are entitled to purchase agricultural lands under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act and there is no bar against them for purchasing agricultural land. The petitioners under various registered sale deeds registered on different dates which are detailed in the petition have purchased and on the basis of sale deeds they applied to first respondent to enter their names within the meaning of Sections 128(4) and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the officer declined to enter their names. Therefore, the writ petitions are filed.3. It is contended by the learned Advocate Mr. Achar that without going into the validity of the sale ...
Smt. Rathnamma and Another Vs. A.V. Sharadamma and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ631
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and Order of the IX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore dated 27th July, 1996, rejecting the petitioners' application for setting aside the sale which prime facie appears, application was given the title to be under Order 21, Rule 90 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code.It appears, the Counsel had also forgotten to mention Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, but the objections that were taken, as can be said to be one covered by Section 47, Civil Procedure Code.2. The facts of the case in brief are that: A suit for partition was filed bearing No. O.S. 9706 of 1980, by the plaintiff-respondent 1 and for separate possession of joint-family property, the suit came to be decreed allotting respective shares to each of the parties. Thereafter, an application was filed for drawing up of the final decree and the case was taken up for drawing a final decree, in accordance with the preliminary decree. At that stage, th...
Bahu Bali Ramappa Padnad and Another Vs. Babu Alias Babu Rao S. Padnad ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Kant21; ILR1999KAR3344; 1999(5)KarLJ562
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J. 1. As both the matters are between the same parties and the subject-matter also being one and the same, they are taken up for disposal by a common order.2. Civil Revision Petition No. 2709 of 1997 is by the appellants being aggrieved of the order of dismissal of Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 1995 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Athani.3. Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 3075 of 1997 is also by the appellants being aggrieved of the order passed in O.S. No. 4 of 1996 rejecting the plaint by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Athani, dated 4-8-1997.4. Brief facts of the case arc as follows:One Babu alias Babu Rao filed O.S. No. 16 of 1991 for partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share in the suit schedule property against the other members of the family i.e., against his brother, brother's son who are common propositus of one Settappa Laxman Padnad who died on 7-4-1933. The defendants in O.S. No. 16 of 1991 have appeared. Defen...
Giriyappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-1999
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1166; 2000(3)KarLJ70
ORDER1. The petitioners are the children of one Venkatappa. In this petition, they have called in question the correctness of the order dated 6th January, 1989 passed by the Land Tribunal, Madhugiri, rejecting their claim for grant of occupancy right in respect of land measuring 32 guntas in Sy. No. 11/1 of Lakshmipura Village, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District.2. The undisputed facts that may be relevant for the disposal of this petition may be set out as hereunder:The father of the petitioners aforesaid Venkatappa had filed Form 7 claiming occupancy right in respect of the land measuring 16 guntas in Sy. No. 10/2, land measuring 5 acres and 31 guntas in Sy. No. 1 of Lakshmipura Village respectively and land measuring 6 acres and 31 guntas in Sy. No. 35, situated at Appanhalli Village, Dodderi Hobli. The Tribunal after conducting necessary enquiry as prescribed under law conferred occupancy right in favour of the said Venkatappa in respect of the said lands by its order dated 3rd Novem...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›