Karnataka Court June 2007 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.
Sri K. Krishna Murthy S/of Late Krishnappa Vs. Sri Ladulal S/of Jaithm ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)KarLJ411; 2007(4)KCCR2488.
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. Though the matter is listed for admission, with consent of learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Moinuddin for Sri Aravind Kumar for the respondent, the same is taken up final hearing and is being disposed of.2. This revision petition is filed under Section 46(1) of the K.R. Act challenging the allowing of I.A. NO. 4 filed by the respondent under Section 42 (6)(b) of the Act seeking leave of the Court to contest the eviction petition filed by the revision petitioner-landlord in HRC. No. 447/2005 dated 6.9.2006.3. The case of the revision petitioner-landlord, in brief, is that, he has filed an eviction petition against the respondent under Section 31 r/w. Section 27(2) (r) of the K.R. Act. With great difficulty notice came to be served on the respondent by affixture. The case was posted on 1.7.06. The respondent appeared through Counsel but not filed any application seeking leave of the Court to contest the matter. The matter was adjourned to 21.7.06 to file o...
Sri L. Shivalingaiah S/O Lingaiah Vs. Panchajanya Vidya Peetha Welfare ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ625; 2007(4)AIRKarR504; AIR2007NOC1908
V. Jagannathan, J.1. The appellant herein, was removed from the Trusteeship of the 1st respondent-Panchajanya Vidya Peetha Welfare Trust (Registered.,) (hereinafter referred to as 'Trust' for short) on the allegation of certain anti trust activities, as mentioned in the articles of charges dated 31.05.2006. The said order of removal was the subject matter of the original suit filed by the appellant herein in O.S.800/2007, wherein, amongst other things, the appellant prayed for a declaration that the order of his removal from the 1st respondent Trust is, illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction and for consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants-respondents herein from interfering with the functioning/discharging of his duties as trustee of the 'Trust' and for other reliefs.2. An application was also filed under Order-39, Rules-1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Code (IA-I) in the said suit, seeking the relief of temporary injunction against the respondents. The lear...
Sri V.N. Nagaraj S/O Late V. Narayana Swamy, Vs. K.V. Srinivasa S/O Ve ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)AIRKarR670
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. Though the matter is listed for admission by consent of both the counsel, it is taken up for final hearing and disposed of.2. This revision petition is filed by the unsuccessful tenants under Section 115 of C.P.C. to set aside the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Kolas in R.R. No. 6/2004 dated 30th March 2007, so also the judgment and Decree passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) J.H.F.C, Chickaballapur in H.R.C. No. 11/91 dated 30th March, 2004.3. The case of the respondents landlord is that the petition schedule premises has fallen to the share of the respondents in the partition. The father of the petitioners took the petition schedule premises on lease from the mother of: the respondents. The respondents herein filed a suit for partition and a compromise decree was drawn in the said suit and the petition schedule premises had fallen to the share of the respondents. Initially deceased Lakshmidevamma filed H.R.C No. 18/70 against the very sam...
Miss Renuka D/O Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. Sri Tammanna S/O Dyawappa Battal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Kant133; ILR2007KAR3029; 2007(6)KarLJ239
ORDER H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 02.12.2005 in O.S.No. 129/2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ranebennur allowing I.A.No. 14 filed under Order 26 Rule 10(a) CPC appointing Dr. Syed Husain, Director, Center for DNA (Finger Printing diagnosis), ECU, Road, Nacharama, Hyderabad-500 076 as expert commissioner to conduct the DNA test by obtaining blood samples of plaintiff, defendant No. 4 and his wife Smt. Geetareddy.2. Petitioner is the plaintiff. Respondents are the defendants before the Trial Court in O.S.No. 129/2003. The parties in this writ petition are referred to their status before the Trial Court.3. Plaintiff filed O.S.No. 129/2003 against the defendants to declare that she is the daughter of late Sri. Ramakrishna and his wife Smt. Lalitha and for other reliefs. The defendants filed written statement denying the claim of plaintiff and contended that plaintif...
Sri. A. Rangaswamy S/O. Appajappa (Since Deceased by Lrs. Smt. Giriamm ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3454; 2007(6)KarLJ468; 2007(3)KCCR2039; 2007(4)AIRKarR390.
H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. This regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.07.1997 in O.S. No. 151/1980 passed by the 10th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, dismissing the suit of plaintiffs.2. Appellants are the plaintiffs and respondents are defendants before the trial Court. The parties are referred to their status before the trial Court.3. Plaintiffs contend that their father Sri. Appajappa and the father of defendants, Sri. Puttarangappa were close relatives and both had business relationship. They jointly purchased survey No. 110 and survey No. 207/2 of Doddagunta village under a registered sale deed dated 28.09.1929. Sri. Appajappa died in the year 1940 and Sri. Puttarangappa died in the year 1957. Sri. Appajappa and Sri. Puttarangappa jointly enjoyed the schedule properties during their life time and thereafter the plaintiffs and defendants who are their legal representatives enjoyed the properties till the year 1963. Thereafter differenc...
Smt. Rutha Bai Vs. Mr. Baldev Singh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3406; 2007(6)KarLJ45; ; 2007(3)KCCR2072; 2007(6)AIRKarR287
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner-landlady under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 challenging the order dated 5.10.2005 passed by the XV Addl. Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore (SCCH No. 19) in HRC No. 10132/2004 dismissing the eviction petition filed by the revision petitioner under Section 27(2)(r) and (q) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 for want of jurisdiction.2. In pursuance of the notice issued to the respondent, neither he has appeared before this Court nor represented through a Counsel. He remained absent. Hence heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the records.3. It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner is a landlady of the building and she being the lawful owner having purchased the petition schedule premises in the year 1981 from her vendor for valuable consideration. At the time of purchasing the property, there w...
C.K. Ravi Prasanna S/O Late C.P. Krishnappa Gowda Vs. T.K. Gowramma W/ ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR2807; 2007(5)KarLJ344; ILR2007(3)Kar2807; 2007(5)KLJ344; 2007(3)KCCRSN121; 2007(4)AIRKarR509; AIR2007NOC1909.
ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 07.03.2007 in O.S. No. 91/2005 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), at Sullia, directing the petitioner to pay duty and penalty on the agreement of sale dated 27.11.2004.2. Petitioner filed O.S. No. 91/2005 against the respondent for grant of decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The petitioner in his plaint relied on an agreement of sale dated 27.11.2004 said to have been executed by the respondent. The respondent entered appearance before the trial Court, filed written statement denying the agreement of sale and opposed the claim of petitioner. After completion of the pleadings and framing of issues, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1. In the evidence of P.W.1 he wanted to mark the agreement of sale dated 27.11.2004. The couns...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›