Karnataka Court October 2010 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.
C.Subramanyam and ors Vs. M.B.Nanjundappa, S/O.M.B.Bhadrappa, and anr
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. This is plaintiffs second appeal.2. The appellants are the LRs of the original plaintiff Sri.C.Subramanyam. The first respondent is defendant No.1. The second respondent is defendant No.2 and since dead by LR Smt.Kamakshamma, who is the third defendant in the suit.3. The parties will be referred to with reference to their rank in the original suit for the sake of convenience.4. The original plaintiff Sri.C.Subramanyam filed suit in O.S.No.439/2003 for declaration, possession and mesne profits. The case of the original plaintiff was that the suit schedule property came to him through settlement deed dated 2.9.1978 and the suit schedule property was the joint family property and the defendant No.2 i.e., Anjanappa had executed a release deed dated 23.2.1962 by taking 200/- along with his brother M.C.Krishnappa and thereafter, the original plaintiff Sri.C.Subramanyam and his father Chinnapayappa became the owners of the joint family properties. It is stated, the plaintiffs another broth...
Smt. Savithri W/O R.N.Madhava Vs. Canara Bank Benson Town Branch
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. General Power of Attorney holder of the appellant and his counsel are present. Learned counsel for the respondent is present.2. Joint memo dated 16.7.2010 is filed today in the Court. The joint memo reads as follows:"It is submitted by the appellant and respondent that both the appellant and respondent agreed to modify the Judgment and Decree to the extent that the interest on the principal amount i.e. Rs.17,000/- to be reduced at the rate of 6% instead of 9% as decreed by the trial Court. Consequently the appellant/defendant liable to pay a total sum of P.s.44,813/- as full and final settlement and both the parties are agreed to refund the Court fee to the appellant. Hence modify the Judgment and Decree in terms of above in the interest of justice and equity."3. In view of the joint memo dated 16.7.2010, this Regular Correction Carried out First Appeal is disposed of in terms of the joint memo. Since the matter is settled between the parties, it is ordered for refund of full the/Co...
Smt. Shakunthala, W/O B Manjunatha Vs. Akhila Bharatha Billawara Union ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner's termination from the services of the second respondent Educational Institution by order dated 11.6.2007 Annexure N has resulted in this writ petition which is opposed by filing statement of objections dated 12.11.2009.2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the voluminous material placed on record, it is apparent, from the relative positions taken by the parties that there is considerable dispute in regard to material facts and that the dispute is of a nature which cannot be conveniently adjudicated in this petition. It is a dispute which seems to me, is more appropriate for adjudication in a proceeding under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act. 1983, an alternative and efficacious remedy, and therefore declined to interfere.3. If the petitioner were to file the appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal within a fortnight from today, the tribunal, I am certain would dispose of the proceeding at least by the end of Decembe...
Venkataswamy and ors Vs. Gopalappa Major, S/O Namballappa and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. Heard the counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit for declaration as to the right of way over the defendant's property and the defendant in turn had filed a suit for injunction restraining the appellant herein from interfering with the suit properties. There was no dispute about the respective title and possession of the appellant since the appellant was only seeking under an agreement of sale, whereby he had been granted possession. However, the trial court did not so much inquire into the title as there was no controversy in respect of possession of the parties. The controversy was as to the existence of a road as claimed by the plaintiff over the defendant's property. The trial court had, on a close examination of the pleadings and the evidence, found that apart from a stray entry in the record of rights as to the existence of a road which was in different ink from the other entries, there was no other document to support the existence of a road whi...
Chanel Pasha S/O Mohammed Yusuff, Vs. J.S. Sanaulla S/O Jahangir Sab a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial Court in a suit tor specific performance of an agreement of sale. The first defendant though had entered appearance and filed written statement did not tender evidence or participate in the proceedings further. The second defendant had contested the suit. It was his case that the first defendant had executed an agreement prior to the agreement of sale set up in the suit and pursuant to the agreement, the suit for specific performance was filed in O.S.No.760/96 and the said suit having been decreed the Court had directed the execution of a sale deed and pursuant to which the second defendant is in possession of the property. This was not seriously challenged by the plaintiff and there was no relief sought to have the same set aside and it was on that basis and on the basis of the admissions made by P.W.I in the course of evidence that the suit was decreed while also holding that the transf...
Poomya Naik. S/O. Late Belemi Bai and ors Vs. the State of Karnataka a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
ORDER1. Learned AGA is directed to take notice for Respondents 1 to 5.2. Though the matter is posted Tor preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up for final hearing.3. The petitioners have challenged the endorsement issued by the Tashildar - Respondent No.4 and also to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.4 to survey the lands belonging to the petitioners situated at Madhuranayakanahalli.4. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under:5. The petitioners claim that they have been granted the agricultural lands bearing R.S.Nos. 18/35. 18/39. 18/40. 18/36 and 18/37 during the year 1958 as they belong to the Scheduled Caste community. In pursuance to the order of grant, the names of the petitioners were entered in the records to an extent of 4 acres in the name of each of the petitioners and the extract of the mutation register has been produced by the petitioners at Annexure-A. The petitioners have...
Sri Pathris Rodrigues S/O Late Sylvester Rodrigues Vs. the State of Ka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. These appeals are tiled by the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.No.3514-15/2009. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single judge dated 22.7.2010, declining to interfere with the order passed by the Land Tribunal. Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada District dated 15.2.1979, wherein 25 cents of land has been granted in Sy.No. 127 which is denoted as 127/2. in favour of the third respondent and 28 cents of land has been granted in Sy.No. 127/3 in favour of respondent No.4.2. Declarations for grant of occupancy rights were filed by the respondent No. 3 and 4 herein contending that they are in possession of Sy.No. 127 of Badagabellur Village of BantwalTaluk. D.K.District and theyfiled Form No.7 accordingly. The Petitioner had also filed declarations for grant of occupancy rights in respect of different portions of Sy.No. 127 in the year 1975.The lands were surveyed and the petitioners holding was duly measured and reported to the tribunal and thereafter, ihe tribunal granted occupan...
Nagesh S/ O Nayalli Ramappa Vs. Deviramma W/O Shivappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
ORDER1. Respondent/ plaintiff, being unsuccessful in O.S.No.63/2001 on the fife of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Mandya, has filed RA.No.56/ 2009 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn,), Mandya,. along with IA.No.1 under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 432 days in Sling the appeal. The petitioner filed statement of objections dated 10.03.2010 and opposed the prayer for condonation of delay made in IA.No.1. The Court bad posted the appeal for enquiry on IA.No. 1. However, on 03.07.2010 upon perusal of IA.No.1 and the affidavit in support thereof, being satisfied with the reasons stated in the, affidavit, the Court below has allowed IA.No. 1, subject to the payment of cost of Rs.200/-. The cost has been accepted as is evident from the endorsement in the order sheet. This writ petition has been filed by the respondent in the appeal, questioning the said order.2. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the writ petition papers.3. Since the order is conditional i.e., dela...
John Bonaventure PerierA. S/O. Late Ruzario Periera Vs. Charlie Perier ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
ORDER1. The petition is filed challenging the order of rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order VIII Rule 1 R/w. Section 148. 151 of CPC.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under;I have referred to the parties in the rank before the trial Court, for the purpose of convenience.The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.268/1999 and the copy of the plaint has been produced 3t Annexure-E. The first respondent herein is third defendant. Whereas respondent Nos.2 to 19 are defendant Nos. 1, 2, 5 to 20. The petitioner has tiled the suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the family property described in schedule-A, item No.1 and II. Thereafter, defendants appeared before the trial Court. Third defendant has filed his written statement and the copy of which has been at Annexure-F. In paragraph. 8 of the written statement the third defendant has taken up a contention that Martin Periera has died leaving behind his last Will and te...
Mopureddy S/O.Venkataramaireddy Vs. Ramakrishnappa S/O. Late Erappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2003 passed in RA.No.44/1996. Where in the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1995 passed in OS No.206/1993 was set aside. For the sake of convenience the parties to this appeal are referred to by their rank in the trial court.2 Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:Initially one Yerrappa s/o Thimmaiah and his son Ramakrishnappa. Filed a suit seeking direction to the defendant to execute the sale deed of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 by receiving a sum of Rs.20,000/- m terms of re-conveyance agreement dated 23.8.1989 and also for the relief of permanent injunction against defendant. In the said suit, defendant entered appearance, filed detailed written statement denying all the averments. However, at paragraph 19 made an admission as under:"The plaintiffs have not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands, but on the other hand the defendant with whole heartedly adm...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »