Karnataka Court April 2010 Judgments

Smt. Ratnamma Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(3)KarLJ201

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioner has sought for an order to quash Annexures-D, E and K and to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to reconsider the application filed by her to grant the land in her favour.2. According to the petitioner, she was in possession and cultivation of the land in Sy. No. 139, Seesandra Village measuring 2 acres 19 guntas and also made an application for grant of land to the Land Grant Committee and the said committee recommended for grant of land in her favour. However, the Tahsildar, by an endorsement, declined to grant the land in favour of the petitioner stating that there is less gomal land in Seesandra Village. It is her further contention that in view of the representation submitted by the 3rd respondent herein, the 4th respondent granted permission to the 1st respondent to grant the gomal land in Sy. No. 139 of Seesandra Village, which is contrary to the law.3. What is being noticed is that the gomal land is said to have ...

K.H. Ganesh Rao Vs. H. Gopal.

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. The reference arises out of two conflicting judgments of the two learned Judges of this Court with regard to right of appeal to the High Court by the complainant against the order of acquittal passed in an appeal by the Sessions Court.2. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Rahim in CrLA.No. 142/2009 has taken a view that the complainant has no right of appeal to I he High Court against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court in an appeal against the order of conviction passed by the trial Court. The remedy of the complainant is only lo file revision or invoke inherent powers of the 1 high Court.3. The provisions of Section 2(2) and Section 5 of the Karnataka High Court Act and Section 378 of Ct.P.C. are extracted for convenient reference:Section 2(2):- "Criminal Appeal" means an appeal which, under any law for the time being in force, lies to the High Court from an order or sentence passed by a subordinate criminal court in the exercise of its original criminal jurisdicti...

Smt. Muniyamma W/O MunivenkatappA. Vs. Sri. Chinnaiah S/O Late Yellapp ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(5)KarLJ395; 2010(5)KCCR3492

1. This is a plaintiff's revision questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.,), Bangalore Rural District.. Bangalore dated 03.02.2010 in O.S.No.659/2001, where under while answering Additional issue No.1, the Court below has he'd that it does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit and consequently ordered the plaintiff to take back the plaint and present it before jurisdictional Court.2. The facts in brief are as follows: The parties are referred to as per the ranks before the Court below. The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and consequential relief and also for delivery of possession of suit schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the 5th defendant, his agents, men, supporters, assigns, executors and workers from not changing the nature of the suit schedule property amongst other reliefs.3. It was contended by the plaintiff that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule pro...