Karnataka Court March 2006 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.
Smt. Roopa J.M. Vs. Sri Jallur Musturappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Kant196; I(2006)DMC743; ILR2006KAR1505; 2006(2)KarLJ644
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The appellant herein was the plaintiff No. 2 in O.S. No. 42/ 1992 on the file the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Chitradurga. The said suit was filed by the present appellant along with her brother Ravi, claiming partition and separate possession of 17/36 share in the suit schedule properties and for mesne profits.2. According to the plaint averments, the plaintiffs Ravi and Roopa are the children of one Jellur Musturappa, the first defendant in the suit. They were born out of the wedlock of the first defendant with Smt. Bharathamma and that the first defendant or neglected to maintain the plaintiffs and their mother Bharathamma. Therefore, they have taken shelter in the house of their maternal grand-father. The plaintiffs claim their 2/3 share in all the suit schedule properties contending that the suit properties are joint family properties and further contended that the first defendant has to perform the marriage of the second plaintiff and she has to be maintained till h...
Members of Yevakapadi Branch of Areyada Family Represented by Areyada ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Kant170; ILR2006KAR3146
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the defendants in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, which came to be decreed by the Trial Court.2. During the pendency of this appeal, one amongst four respondents viz., second respondent who was the second plaintiff in the suit having died, the matter had been listed for further Order before the Court for the purpose of taking steps by the appellant.3. While no steps were taken by the appellants, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants are not inclined to take steps to bring on record the legal representatives of second respondent and the appellants may be permitted to continue the proceedings against the surviving respondents-plaintiffs.4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection as to the continued tenability of the appeal contending that as steps have not been taken in respect of one of the responde...
Sri Haji Iqbal Shariff S/O Jikkar Shariff Vs. Smt. C. Manjula D/O Sri ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR2766; 2006(6)KarLJ213
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. Though the matters are listed for preliminary hearing in 'B' group, by consent of both the learned Counsel heard and disposed of finally by this common order.2. The petitioner in both the writ petitions are the tenants before the II Additional Small Causes Judge, at Bangalore in HRC No. 463/ 2003. The petitioners in both the cases filed Application I.A. 4 under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act 1999, to stay all further proceedings and direct the parties to approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction to declare that their respective rights. Whereas I.A. No. VII is filed under Section 151 of C.P.C praying to recall the order dated 22/11/2005 and permit him to cross-examine P.W.1.3. Brief facts leading to these cases are that the respondent in both the cases is none other than the daughter of Sri S. Chandrashekar, who is the owner of the petition schedule premises. The respondent was in occupation of the entire first floor measuring 55 x 24 feet and she pu...
Gulhati and anr. Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: ILR2007KAR44
B. Padmaraj, J.1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by the appellant - guarantor under Section 32(9) of the State Financial Corporation Act is directed against the order dated 17.3.2001 of the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in Miscellaneous No.61/1993, whereby the Learned District Judge has allowed the petition filed by the 1st respondent Corporation (KSFC) under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act in part holding that the appellant and the respondents 2 to 5 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,11,91,338/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition, until actual payment. They have been directed to pay the amount within three months from the date of the order.2. The 1st respondent Corporation filed a petition under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act for directing the appellant and the Respondents 2 to 5 to pay Rs. 1,11,91,338/- with interest at 16.5% ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›