Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: dehra dun act 1871 Sorted by: old Court: karnataka Page 14 of about 14,121 results (0.106 seconds)

Gangappa Vs. Boregowda and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1955Kant91; AIR1955Mys91

ORDERVenkata Ramaiya and Balakrishnaiya, JJ.In a suit on a pronote, the plaintiff obtained an attachment before judgment. The suit was dismissed in the trial Court. Subsequent to the dismissal of the suit the property was sold by the original owners to third persons. On appeal from the judgment of dismissal the suit was decreed and that decision was confirmed in the second appeal. In pursuance of the ultimate decree the properties which were attached before judgment in the trial Court were brought to sale and were purchased by strangers and the said rule having been confirmed, the properties were delivered by the court to the purchasers. The material point on which the decision in this appeal turns is whether the attachment before judgment, which ceased with the dismissal of the suit, is revived, when the decision of dismissal is reversed by the emperor Court. In 32 Mys C. C. R. 97 (A), it is laid down that 'the reversal of the judgment of dismissal on appeal does not operate to revive...

T.K. Gopala Chetty and anr. Vs. Director of Public Instruction in Myso ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1955Kant81; AIR1955Mys81

..... hooks when necessary, the government also appointed a secretary to the text-book committee whose business was to implement the rules and to carry on correspondence and to act as a liaison between the various text-book committees and the director and the deputy director. 16. it appears that so far back as in april 1947 ..... absolute power was given to an officer in certain matters. the application of these principles cannot be avoided only because of the absence of a statute governing the acts of the director. it is not disputed that administrative orders may be challenged if these involve infringement of i constitutional rights or disregard of rules. in --'state ..... therefore the 2nd respondent's books which were the only books received were prescribed by the director in exercise of his discretion. it is contended that the act is administrative not liable to be questioned under article 226 and that the petitioners having failed to apply for selection of their books are not entitled to impugn .....

N. Krishnaji Rao Vs. Gokuldas Harbhagavandas and anr.

Court : Karnataka

ORDER1. These are two petitions filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 24, Civil P. C. praying that O. S. 141/54 and 219/54 pending in the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, may be 'transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mysore, to be tried along with O. S. Nos. 115 and 116/54 pending on the file of that Court. C. P. 10/55 relates to the transfer of O. S. 141/54 and C. P. 11/55 to the transfer of O. S. 219/54. The same point arises for decision in both these cases and therefore both of them will be covered by a common order,2. The allegations 'made in the application and affidavit in support of the transfer are that some of the issues in all these cases are identical, that all the hundies which are the subject-matter of these four suits were executed in Mysore that all the 15 hundies will have to be exhibited in each of the four cases, that the oral evidence that the defendant has to adduce is common to all the cases, that the defendant's witnesse...

Madappa Vs. Basaviah and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1955Kant88; AIR1955Mys88

Vasudevamurthy, J.1. The plaintiff has brought a suit for partition by metes and bounds of the plaint schedule properties, which consist of three items with a view to ascertain the share therein of defendant 1 and to allot suit item 1 which is a house,, to the share of defendant 1, so that the plaintiff who has purchased the same from defendant 1 by a sale deed dated 6-7-1943 might get it. After that sale defendants 2 to 4 who were all then minors sued the plaintiff in O.S. No. 110/ 44-45 for a declaration that that alienation by defendant 1 their father was not binding on their three-fourths share in that item. That suit was decreed in their favour and then they filed a second suit O.S. No. 182-/47-48 for separation and delivery of possession of their share which had been so declared unaffected by the alienation. The plaintiff subsequently filed the present suit O.S. No. 72/48-49 for a general partition with a prayer as above. The Munsiff who heard the suit held that, the suit was not...

In Re: Chikka Byre Gowda

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1955Kant119; AIR1955Mys119; 1955CriLJ1274

..... not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence pf the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused'.8. the principle of this decision has been repeated and applied by the -supreme court in --'ketlar nath v. state of west bengal .....

A. Venkataramiah Vs. Channiah and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1955Kant144; AIR1955Mys144; 1955CriLJ1613

ORDERH. Hombe Gowda, J.1. This is a revision petition filed against an order passed by the Munsiff-Magistrate of Dodballapur in C.C. No. 233/54 on his file directing the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 5/- to each of the three respondents after acquitting them in the case.2. The petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondents for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 352 of the Penal Code into the Court of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Dodballapur and the same was registered as C. C. No. 233/54. The respondents who were served with summons appeared before the Court and pleaded not guilty to the charge that was read over and explained to them. The complainant and two witnesses were examined and the case for the petitioner was closed.The respondents examined two witnesses on their behalf and closed their case. The learned Munsiff-Magistrate came to the conclusion that no case was made out against the respondents for any of the offences alleged against them and acquitted...

Devaralinga Gowda and anr. Vs. Puttaswamy Gowda and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1955Kant133; AIR1955Mys133

..... the relief is claimed a vested right not to be called upon to answer the claim. it is also recognised that though the court has a discretion under the limitation act to excuse delay in the initiation of certain proceedings, the discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or rightly in favour of a party unless he shows good or sufficient cause for .....

AswaThe Vs. S. Shamiah and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1955Kant143; AIR1955Mys143

..... constructive possession of the suit schedule properties along with the respondents and as such was entitled to pay a fixed court-fee under article 11-b, schedule ii, court-fees act and paid rs. 100/- as court-fee.the learned district judge was of the opinion that since the petitioner had been, according to the plaint allegations, adopted about 2 or ..... items of the suit schedule properties, he is entitled to pay a fixed court-fee of rs. 100/- under article 11-b of schedule ii, court-fees act (article 17 of the central act) on his memorandum of appeal.vasudevamurthy j. observed in the course of his judgment that the plaintiff's suit continued to be on the whole a partition suit ..... criterion to decide as to whether a person is entitled to pay a fixed court-fee under article 11-b, schedule ii, mysore court-fees act (which is the same as article 17 of the central act) or is liable to pay ad valorem court-fee on the value of his share. (vide -- 'maghanmal v. tolaram', 16 ind cas 778 (a), -- 'asa .....

Kariyappa and ors. Vs. Somanna

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1955Kant138; AIR1955Mys138; 1955CriLJ1611

..... . 35 mys ccr 10 (d) cited by mr. gulur srinivasa rao is distinguishable as it is based on the consideration that the facts relating to the offence under the excise act of which the accused was acquitted were the same as those relating to offences under the indian penal code. it cannot be said that the requirements for the offence of .....

Katappa and ors. Vs. Serappa Sakalathi Rangappa and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1955Kant131; AIR1955Mys131; 1955CriLJ1509

..... possession of the sites instead of agitating the matter in a proper civil court and obtaining possession from the petitioners. the learned magistrate, in my opinion, was not justified in acting on the interested, unreliable and hopelessly discrepant evidence of the respondents' witnesses and holding that the petitioners actually trespassed into the sites on 19-4-1954 and constructed the sheds ..... must have trespassed into the sites subsequent to or somewhere near about 19-4-54 was the observation that he made from the local inspection. the learned magistrate has entirely acted upon his observations and as a matter of fact incorporated his observations and opinion in his judgment and entirely relied upon to hold that the sheds put up by the .....