Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE9H DAY OF JANUARY, 2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION Nos.3536-3538/2015 & WRIT PETITION No.3539/2015 (LA-KIADB) S/O. NARAPPA, AGED ABOUT53YEARS, S/O. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT50YEARS, S/O. MURIGEPPA, AGED ABOUT46YEARS, BETWEEN:1. D. SHARANAPPA2 D. JAYAPPA3 B.M. SHIVAKUMAR4 B. MANJAPPA5 D. BASAVARAJA S/O. NARAPPAM, AGED ABOUT48YEARS, (BY SRI: P.H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:1. ALL ARE R/AT MAHAJENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 601. S/O. H.B. REVANAPPA, AGED ABOUT50YEARS ... PETITIONERS STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, #14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P.BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, 2 BENGALURU 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.3.4. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NRUPATHUNGA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR1694; 2003(2)KarLJ276
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. This revision petition under Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the repealed Act'), is filed by the tenant against the order of eviction dated 27-6-1997 passed by the Small Causes Court in H.R.C. No. 4351 of 1980.2. The deceased respondent was the landlord and petitioner was the tenant in the Trial Court. The respondents herein are the legal heirs of deceased landlord. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred to as 'landlord' and 'tenant' respectively.3. The brief facts of the case are, the landlord filed petition in H.R.C. No. 4351 of 1980 under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the repealed Act seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent and that the landlord requires the petition schedule premises for his bona fide use and occupation. The tenant resisted the eviction petition denying the claim of the landlord and the jural relationship and taking variou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR532
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases between one and the same contesting parties in relation to several agricultural lands are closely inter-connected, they can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. We, therefore propose to dispose of them by a common order.2. During the period from 1942 to 1945 one Hariyachar of Coimbator City of Tamilnadu State, a Hindu by religion and a Chartered Accountant by profession, with a passion for agriculture and horticulture, bought a number of agricultural lands bearing different survey numbers and extents situated at Varuna, Janthigalli and Dandikere villages of Mysore Taluk, Mysore District, in all measuring about 120 acres from their previous owners for valuable consideration. All those lands except Survey No. 208 of Janthigalli village measuring about 10 acres, are contiguous to each other and form one compact block of 110 acres and we will hereafter refer to the area of 110 acres and Sy. No. 208...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - R CRL.A No.1206 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No.820 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE14H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. S. HEMALEKHA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1206 OF2017C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL No.820 OF2017IN CRL.A. No.1206/2017 BETWEEN:1. SAYYED MOHAMMED NAUSHAD, S/O SAYED MOHAMMED IRSHAD, AGED ABOUT32YEARS, R/O SHADI MAHAL, DOOR NO.21-158-3, 1ST MAIN, SUBHASHNAGAR, PANDESHWAR, MANGALURU-575 001.2. AHAMAD BAVA ABOOBAKKAR, S/O ABOOBAKKAR, AGED ABOUT39YEARS, R/O BELLUR, HALEANGADY, MANGALURU-574 146. APPELLANTS (BY SRI TOMY SEBASTIAN, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI RAVINDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT No.1; BY SRI C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W MS. SAGARIKA RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR APEELLANT No.2) - 2 - CRL.A No.1206 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No.820 of 2017 AND:1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THOUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ULLALA POLICE STATION, MANGALURU-575 020. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - R CRL.A No.1206 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No.820 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE14H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. S. HEMALEKHA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1206 OF2017C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL No.820 OF2017IN CRL.A. No.1206/2017 BETWEEN:1. SAYYED MOHAMMED NAUSHAD, S/O SAYED MOHAMMED IRSHAD, AGED ABOUT32YEARS, R/O SHADI MAHAL, DOOR NO.21-158-3, 1ST MAIN, SUBHASHNAGAR, PANDESHWAR, MANGALURU-575 001.2. AHAMAD BAVA ABOOBAKKAR, S/O ABOOBAKKAR, AGED ABOUT39YEARS, R/O BELLUR, HALEANGADY, MANGALURU-574 146. APPELLANTS (BY SRI TOMY SEBASTIAN, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI RAVINDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT No.1; BY SRI C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W MS. SAGARIKA RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR APEELLANT No.2) - 2 - CRL.A No.1206 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No.820 of 2017 AND:1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THOUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ULLALA POLICE STATION, MANGALURU-575 020. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR792
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed by the two tenants who are aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.II In H.R.C. No.2228/84 dated 42-4-1985. The 1st respondent in this case was allotted the petition schedule house by the 2nd respondent.2. The facts of the case, which are essential for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition, are, briefly, as follows:In an earlier eviction petition filed in H.R.C. No. 19/83, the 1st respondent was the sole petitioner suing respondents-1 and 2 for eviction in respect of the same premises which is the subject matter of the subsequent eviction petition in H.R.C.No.2228/84. So far as the respondents are concerned, they are common to both H.R.C.Nos.19/83 and 2228/84.3. At some stage of the proceedings, the 1st respondent, who was the petitioner in H.R.C. 19/83 filed a memo on 16-7-1934 in Court (before the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City) to the effect that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the petition. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1975Kant47; ILR1975KAR313; 1975(1)KarLJ386
Malimath, J. 1. This second appeal has come a before us on a reference made by Justice Venkataswami by his order dated 22nd November, 1972, on the ground that there is some conflict between the decisions of this Court in the case reported in (1965) 1 Mys LJ 100 between Parvathi Bai v. Damodar Anant Hegde and the unreported decision in Ex. Second Appeal No. 100 of 1966 between Situ Hengsu v. B. Kamalabai decided on 14-4-1967 (Mys.) on the question of applicability of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 to pending proceedings.2. Respondents 1 to 6 instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 377 of 1964 in the Court of the Munsiff at Belgaum on the 25th of August, 1964 for possession of the suit house situate in Madhavpur and for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 280, alleging that the appellant-defendant is a monthly tenant under them and that his tenancy has been duly terminated. The Ist Additional Munsiff, Belgaum made a decree for possession and arrears of rent of Rs. 217 with i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR962; 1991(4)KarLJ187
ORDERB.N. Krishnan, J. 1. The Revision Petitioner was defendant in S.C. No. 2303/82 on the file of the Court of Small Causes (SCCH-13) Bangalore. That was a suit filed by the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendant from the suit house bearing No. 402-350 situated in First Division, Yelahanka and for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs 350/-. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant was inducted as tenant of the suit house on a monthly rent of Rs. 35/- by one P.M. Nagaraju and that Nagaraju and other members of his family had sold the said house in her favour, under a registered sale deed dated 8th April 1981 and consequent upon the said sale deed, the tenancy of the defendant was also attorned in her favour. The defendant by a notice through his Advocate had admitted that he had been inducted into possession of the house as a tenant of Nagaraju. However, he set up a title in himself and abandoned the claim of tenancy. Consequently, the plaintiff terminated his tenancy and filed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR1405; 1985(1)KarLJ57
Murlidher Rao, J.1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in Long Cause Suit No. 97/61 on the file of the Prl. Munsiff, Hubli. Theappellants have challenged the order of remand.2. This appeal is against the order in R.A. No. 6/74. The Learned Civil Judge while allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the Court below, hasremanded the suit to the Trial Court with a direction to record the findings on Issues 1, 2 and 4 and dispose of the suit, as early as possible, in accordance with law.3. The brief facts which need mention are as follows : The plaintiffs filed the present suit on (sic)-11-1961 for recovery of possession, rent and mesne profits in respect of thepremises bearing Municipal Nos. 2707/1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E situated at Hubli. Before filing the suit, the plaintiffs had applied to the State Government to exempt the premises from the operation of Bombay Rent Control Act under Section 4 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(1)AIRKarR417; AIR2009NOC1060.
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is by the plaintiffs in OS No 26 of 1981, on the file of court of Munsiff at Gowribidanur, whose suit though had been decreed as prayed for declaring them to be the persons entitled for a 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property, which the sole defendant had purchased from the husband of first plaintiff, who also acted as guardian of plaintiffs 2 to 6 - minor children i.e. plaintiffs 2 to 5 being daughters and sixth plaintiff being the son - and are entitled for recovery of possession of 2/3rd of the suit schedule property with consequential rights etc., that judgment and decree having been reversed by the lower appellate court in RA No 30 of 1983, on the file of court of Civil Judge (Sr Dn), Chikkaballapur in terms of judgment dated 24-6-2000, which is questioned in this second appeal. The plaintiffs are seeking to get over this judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and for restorati...
Tag this Judgment!