Karnataka Court September 2000 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.
Thimappa Basappa Doddayankannavar (Deceased) by L.Rs. Vs. Krishnappa G ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant57
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Heard Sri B. S. Keshava Iyengar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. Manjula Devi T. M. holding brief for Sri F. V. Patil. 2. This revision petition arises from thejudgment and order D/-13-10-1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Ranebennur, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 20/95 allowing the defendant's appeal and setting aside the judgment and order dt. 17-7-1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hirekerur, on I.A.I. filed in O.S. No. 165/95. 3. The facts of the case in brief are, that the above suit was filed by the plaintiff/ revision petitioner for decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as well as from interfering with plaintiff's right to lift water from the well situated in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff alleged that there has been an agreement of sale of suit s...
Smt. Raziyaa Mahaboob Patel Vs. Sri. Rajesab Hasan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ269
B. Padmaraj, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned counsel for the Respondents/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and carefully perused the case papers with their assistance. Though the matter came up or listed before the Court to hear regarding the framing of charges against the respondents/accused, with the consent of both sides, we have heard the matter for its final disposal and it is accordingly disposed of finally by this order.2. The complainant is one Smt. Raziya Mehaboob Patel and the respondents/accused are: Sri Rajesab Hasan Dongre Janavekar and the City Municipal Council, Bijapur represented by its Commissioner and they were parties to the writ petition filed before this Court in W.P.No. 8430/99. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 23-8-1999 with certain directions. The relevant portion of the order made by this Court in W.P. No. 8430/99 on 23-8-1999 reads as under :4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the...
Siddesha and ors. Vs. State by Belur Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-07-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ38
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This appeal which concerns one more sad and horriflying wife burning instance is directed against the judgment dt. 13-2-1995 in Sessions Case No. 49/1992 from the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge at Hassan, The prosecution alleged that deceased-Vedavathi had been married to Accused No. 1 Siddesha about two-and-half years prior to the date of incident which is 13-2-1992. The couple were living with Siddesha's parents accused No. 2 Mallamma and accused No. 6 Muddegowda as also with the sister Suma and brothers Manjunatha and Virupaksha. The prosecution alleges that on the evening of 13-2-1992 the six accused forcibly dragged deceased. Vedavathi to the bathing room of their house, poured kerosene on her and that accused No. 1 set her clothes on fire. Vedavathi screamed in pain at which time the accused themselves poured water and put out the flames, they changed her clothes and thereafter took her to the hospital. In her statement to the doctor, Vedavathi stated t...
A.K. Laxmanagouda Vs. A.K. Jayaram and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant123
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has arisen from the judgment and decree D/-20-1-1997 in O. S. No. 87/93 whereby the trial Court (Civil Judge, Chikmagalur) has dismissed the plaintiff/appellant's suit for decree for declaration that after the life time of the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff becomes the absolute owner of the schedule property and for decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from alienating the suit schedule property in any manner and from cutting and removing the timber or shade trees standing in the schedule property.2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that Kenchegowda, his two sons A. K. Lakshmana Gowda and A. K. Jayaram as well as Smt. S. Yeshodamma, wife of Kenchegowda and mother of the plaintiff/appellant and defendant/respondent No, 1 constituted a joint family. That according to the plaintiffs case, on 28-3-1980, with the consent of all the members, like Kenche...
Lagamanna Gangappa Salagere Vs. Laxman and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)364; ILR2000KAR4015; 2001(1)KarLJ189
ORDER1.This revision petition is filed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Criminal Revision No. 221 of 1997, dated 29-1-2000 allowing the revision filed by respondents 1 and 2 and setting aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Raibag in Summary Case No. 31 of 1995, dated 21-2-1997. 2. The revision petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondents for offences under Sections 147, 148, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Raibag. The learned Magistrate referred the said complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to the jurisdictional P.S.I. by his order dated 9-8-1994. After completing the investigation, 'B' report was submitted by the police to the Court in the year 1996. The learned Magistrate accepted the 'B' report on 27-3-1996. On coming to know about the acceptance of the 'B' report, the...
Shivaputrappa Vs. Subhash Joshi and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3829; 2001(2)KarLJ115
1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby W.P. No. 6252 of 1999 filed by the respondent-Sri Subhas Joshi has been allowed, the impugned orders and calendar of events quashed and a direction issued to the Returning Officer to declare the respondent duly elected to the Committee of management of the 3rd respondent-Society.2. Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of Multi-State Societies Act, 1984. The appellant and respondent 1 are members of the said Society, which is managed by a committee comprising eleven persons, ten out of whom are from out of Category-A members while the eleventh is elected by Category-B members of the Society. Elections to the Committee were scheduled to be held in December 1998, in which connection the Assistant Commissioner was appointed as the Returning Officer, who in turn published a calendar of events inter alia fixing the dates for f...
Sharad V. Sampat and Others Vs. the Karnataka Stte Financial Corporati ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant393; ILR2001KAR229; 2001(2)KarLJ138
ORDER1. The parties are common. The grievance is similar. The reliefs sought are identical. Therefore, these petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. It is now well-settled law that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, is a discretionary jurisdiction and even in cases, where an authority is amenable to the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court may decline to exercise that jurisdiction on principles of justice, equity or good conscience including waiver or acquiescence or any other laches on the petitioners part or particularly, on grounds that the matter involves an adjudication of disputed facts, necessitating a detailed enquiry by taking and appreciating oral, or documentary evidence adduced, or most likely to be adduced by the parties or there is an alternative and equally efficacious remedy for redressal of the wrong complained of or the writ petition has been filed after considerable delay.3. Petitioners 1 an...
Lakshmamma Vs. Kamalamma and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant120; II(2001)DMC242; ILR2000KAR3837; 2001(2)KarLJ470
K. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 11-1-1993 passed by the learned IX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 1138 of 1985, wherein, the suit of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed, 2. The facts leading to this appeal are stated thus: The plaintiff claimed to be the daughter of one late Mallappa, born through one Nanjamma, the first wife of late Mallappa. The first defendant is said to be the second wife of late Mallappa. Out of the wedlock with the first defendant, Mallappa did not have any issues. The second defendant is the sister of the plaintiff. Mallappa died on 21-1-1985. Defendants 3 to 10 are the tenants in the property belonging to the deceased Mallappa. The plaintiff claiming to he the daughter of late Sri Mallappa, filed the suit claiming l/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. The first defendant has seriously contested the suit i...
Shanthappa Alias Thatappa Vs. Smt. Buddamma Alias Lakshmamma and Anoth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4665; 2001(2)KarLJ617
ORDER1. The short question that falls for consideration is whether an application for amendment of the judgment and decree passed in favour of the predecessor in interest of the applicant before us can be maintained before the Appellate Court. The question arises in the following circumstances.-2. Smt. Buddamma, w/o late Sri Changaiah filed a suit for partition against a joint family property, in which her husband held an interest claiming 1/4th share for herself. The suit was decreed by the IX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, against which one of the defendants preferred RFA No. 156 of 1989 before this Court. The said appeal was dismissed by a reasoned order dated 17th of July, 1989 passed by a Division Bench without issuing notice to the respondents, one out of whom had entered appearance on caveat. In the final decree proceedings that followed, the applicant appears to have been substituted in place of the plaintiff-decree holder on the basis of a Will set up by him. He has n...
Hanumanthagouda Vs. Bandu Alias Bandeppa Venkatesh Kulkarni and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant10; ILR2001KAR179; 2001(2)KarLJ610
ORDER1. This CRP is preferred by the first defendant in O.S. No. 5 of 1995 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilagi against the non-acceptance of the counter-claim in the said suit.2. The CRP arose out of O.S. No. 5 of 1995, a suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondents herein restraining the petitioner not to obstruct their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land. It is submitted by the petitioner that there was some delay in filing the written statement and after taking permission from the Court, after the examination-in-chief was completed the statement was filed with a counter-claim under Order 8, Rule 6-A praying for a decree for specific performance on the basis of an agreement of sale. The counter- claim was objected before the Court below on the ground of limitation and thus the CRP came to be filed challenging such an order.3. The order of the Trial Court mentioned that on 7-3-1997 the case was opened and on 26-7-1997, the plaintiff record...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »