Court : Karnataka Dharwad
anand byrareddy, j: 1. heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the leaned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. these appeals are preferred in respect of the same judgment. the appeal in 454/2004 is filed by the accused challenging the order of conviction insofar as offence under section 13(1)(d) punishable under section 13(2) is concerned, whereas the appeal in 1283/2008 is filed, by the respondent in the first of these appeals, challenging the acquittal of the accused under section 7 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988. 3. the brief facts of the case are as follows: it is stated that the complainant, one dattatreya someshwara hegde and his family own 17 acres of land bearing survey nos.110, 111, 91 and 92 in mavinakoppa and sannikere villages. the complainant and his elder brother were cultivating the land and taking care of the affairs pertaining thereto. the complainant is said to be a graduate in arts. in an area of 8 acres, the complainant and his family have grown areca crop. in another extent of 3 acres, they have grown cardamom, pepper and banana in addition to areca crop. the father of the complainant had applied for a well subsidy on 15.02.1994 through the field officer, spice board, sirsi, in the prescribed form. an estimate for digging the well was prepared by the engineer of zilla parishad and submitted to the spice board. in the month of may 1994, one girish kumar, field officer of the spice board had intimated that approval had been granted to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
abdul nazeer, j. this appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in r.a.no.39/2002 dated 22.12.2009 on the file of the fast track court-ii, dharwad, whereby the judgment and decree in o.s.no.80/1977 dated 25.9.2002 on the file of the additional civil judge (sr.dn.) at hubli has been set aside. the appellants were the defendants in the suit and the respondents were the plaintiffs. for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective ranking before the trial court. 2. the plaintiffs filed the above suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. the genealogical tree of the family is as under: neelappa havalappa boli (dead)ningappa (dead) basavanneppa mahadevappahonnappa gundappa mahalingappashivalingappa shekappa (d-1) (d-2) (p-1) (p-2) (p-3) yellappa doddakoteppasannokoteppashankrappa (d-3)(d-4) (dead) (d-7) parvatevva (d-5) mahantappa (d-6) it is contended that the suit properties are ancestral properties of the joint and undivided hindu family of the plaintiffs grand father neelappa. he died on 21.6.1955 leaving behind him his three sons, ningappa, basvanneppa and mahadevappa. mahadevappa was the genitive father of the plaintiffs. mahadevappa was given in adoption to another family after the plaintiffs were born to him. the plaintiffs remained in their genitive family and became heirs and surviving co-parceners after the death of their grand father neelappa. after the death of neelappa, plaintiff nos.1 to 3, ningappa .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
Reported in : 2012(3)KCCR1971
(prayer: this writ appeal is filed under section 4 of the karnataka high court act praying to set aside the order passed in the writ petition no. 13975/2005 dated 22.02.2007.) 1. the appellants have assailed the correctness of the order dated 22.02.2007 passed in w.p. no. 13975/2005 by the learned single judge, wherein the respondent herein had assailed the correctness of order dated 28.02.2005 passed in rb/lnd-ii/ap/cr-3/04-05 and order dated 30.03.2000 passed by the assistant commissioner, sirsi sub-division sirsi. 2. the brief facts of the case are: the respondent herein claiming to be a well qualified m.sc. graduate filed form no. 50 under rule 108 for regularization of unauthorized cultivation of land measuring 3.00 acres of margundi village of sirsi taluk. on 09.07.1991 pursuant to the application filed by the respondent herein and after verifying the contents of the prescribed form filed by the respondent, the third appellant submitted his report to the committee for regularization of unauthorized cultivation. the said committee in turn has passed a resolution dated 01.09.1994 regularizing his unauthorized cultivation. the third appellant being aggrieved by the decision taken by the regularization committee has filed an appeal before the second appellant in proceedings no. lae/12/98-99. the said matter came up for consideration before the second appellant on 30.03.2000. after conducting thorough enquiry, the said authority rejected the claim of the respondent on the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
venugopala gowda, j the matter is on board, to hear regarding non compliance of office objection. the office raised objection with regard to the maintainability of this review petition. learned counsel for the petitioner having endorsed on the form of examination report (form no.14) to the effect that under order 47 rule 1, there is no prohibition for second review and may be posted before the court., the matter has been placed before us. 2. it is necessary to notice in brief, the facts of the case, which have led to the filing of this review petition: the petitioner/workman remained absent from duty while working on the post of junior assistant with the respondent/management from 18.7.86 to 30.10.86 i.e., for about 102 days. management issued articles of charges on 21.8.87 alleging that, the absence was unauthorised and amounted to misconduct, to which, the workman submitted his reply. the explanation offered by the workman having been found to be not satisfactory, domestic enquiry was ordered. the workman did not participate in the enquiry despite issue of notices by the enquiry officer. the enquiry officer submitted his report holding the charge levelled against the workman as proved. the disciplinary authority having taken further action, passed an order of dismissal against the workman on 10.1.2000. while imposing the punishment, it was noted by the disciplinary authority that the workman had remained unauthorisedly absent even on earlier occasions and there were .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
Reported in : 2011ILR(Kar)760
plaintiff is in appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment and decree passed in r.a.no.45/2009 by the iii additional district judge, dharwad dated 31/08/2010. the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial court. 2. brief facts of the case leading to filing of this appeal are as under: appellant instituted a suit in o.s.no.150/2008 on the file of iii additional civil judge (sr.dn.) dharwad for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of perpetual injunction in respect of suit property. it was contended, in the suit that plaintiff has become absolute owner in possession of suit property on the strength of an unregistered sale deed executed by the father of the defendant namely late sri. anantappa mahadevappa mulagund on 05.09.1971 and when the plaintiff sought for change of his name in the revenue records pursuant to earlier representation which had not been done by the tahsildar inspite of representation given, tahasildar gave the endorsement on 01.08.2008 directing the plaintiff to file a civil suit and obtain appropriate order from the competent court of law, plaintiff filed the suit in question and sought for relief stated herein above. it is further contended that defendants have not appeared in the suit even after due service of suit summons and defendants came to be placed exparte and after recording evidence of the plaintiff on 20.12.2008 suit came to be decreed on the same day by the judgment and decree of the trial court .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
Reported in : 2008(5)KCCR3593(DB)
1. being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 28.2.2003 passed by the fast track court, dharwad, in s.c.no.137/2001, acquitting the accused for the offences under sections 498-a, 304-b and 306 r/w 34 ipc and sections 3, 4 and 6 of the dowry prohibition act ('the act' for short), present appeal is filed by the state.2. the brief facts giving rise to the present case, as per the prosecution story are, as follows:accused no.3 is the son of accused no.l and 2. deceased manjavva, daughter of pws.15 and 16 smt.kashawa and ssdeppa kariyappa madar, was married to accused mo.3 on s.4.2000. according to the prosecution, at the time of marriage talks, there was demand of dowry both in the form of cash as well as gold ornaments and after negotiations, the accused agreed to accept cash of rs.5,000/- and gold weighing 2-1/2 tholas. it is the case of the prosecution that though initially, the relationship between the deceased and her husband and in-laws was cordial, later on they started ill-treating and harassing her for not bringing enough dowry as they had demanded and ultimately had resulted in the death of manjavva on 31.10.2000 by committing suicide by setting herself on fire.3. coming to the incident, according to ths prosecution, in the evening of 31.10.2000, when the accused and the deceased were in the house, on hearing the cry of manjavva, people gathered, relatives went inside, they saw her body engulfed with fire. after extinguishing fire, she was shifted to hospital, .....
Tag this Judgment!