Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys136; ILR1962KAR777
T.K. Tukol, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned District Judge in O. S. No. 23 of 1954 by which he granted a decree for probate in favour of the respondent.2. The suit was originally instituted by one Basavalingappa on 20-8-1953 praying for the issue of a probate in his favour on the ground that one Channamma had executed a will on 20-9-1950 appointing him as an executor thereunder. Before notice of this petition could be served on the respondent Komalamma who is admittedly the daughter of the predeceased son of Chennamma, Basavalingappa himself died on 16-12-1953 and his grandson Somasekharappa filed an application for being substituted as the legal representative of the deceased. That application was granted. After service of notice in due course, Komalamma filed her statement of objection and she contended that the petitioner Somasekharappa by himself had no right to continue the proceedings as there were other legal representatives of deceased Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys115; ILR1962KAR630; (1963)1MysLJ297
1. This appeal which raises an interesting question of law about which there is considerable conflict of judicial opinion was referred to a Bench by Kalagate, J and therefore it is before us. In this appeal the true scope of Section 107 of the Evidence Act comes up for consideration.2. The facts of the case are no more in dispute. Both the Courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion that Parappa the propositus died a few years prior to the suit. He had four sons, viz., Irappa, Maharudrappa, Shivalingappa and Mallappa. Even during the lifetime of Irappa there was a partition in his family. Under the partition the family properties were divided only between the four sons. The two survey numbers, viz., 577/2 and 579/2 of Sattigeri village in Belgaum District had been given to Parappa for his maintenance. In other words these two survey numbers remain undivided. The evidence discloses that Irappa was slightly demented; that he left the family house long time back and that he had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1963]49ITR763(KAR); [1963]49ITR763(Karn)
K.S. Hegde, J. 1. These are connected petitions. They are filed by the two partners of a dissolved firm. The firm in question was assessed to excess profits tax in a sum of Rs. 74,612-11-0 and a compulsory deposit of Rs. 19,816 for the chargeable accounting period from October 30, 1943 to April 30, 1944, and a notice of demand was issued to them by the Income-tax Officer on February 1, 1948, which was served on them on or before March 10, 1948 (The exact date is not known). The assessee applied to the Income-tax Officer for extension of time for the payment of tax assessed. Time was granted till April 15, 1948. Meanwhile, they filed on appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner extended time on September 3, 1948, for the payment of the tax levied till the disposal of the appeal. The appeal was disposed of in 1957. A certificate under section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, read with rule 3 of the Excess Profits Tax Rules, 1940, was issued ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1963(7)FLR301]; ILR1962KAR690; (1963)IILLJ235Kant; (1963)1MysLJ200
ORDERHegde, J.1. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, namely, the Printers (Mysore) (Private), Ltd., a limited company, has prayed for quashing the order passed by the labour court, Bangalore, on 31 August, 1960. Two different grounds are advanced in support of the petitioner's prayer. Firstly, it is contended that the impugned order is vitiated, as the presiding officer did not conform to the principles of natural justice. It is nextly urged that the order in question is an invalid order as it was made on a reference which was not subsisting on the date the same was passed, i.e., on 31 August 1960. 2. The facts material for the purpose of pronouncing on the contentions advanced before this Court are as follows : On 1 April, 1948 the petitioner appointed Mr. Pothan Joseph, respondent 1, as the editor of Deccan Herald, a paper run by the petitioner. On 1 April, 1948 the petitioner and the respondent 1 entered into a written agreement. As per the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys303
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This is the second occasion on which the announcement of the names of successful candidates by the Mysore Public Service Commission under the provisions of the Mysore Munsiffs (Recruitment) Rules, 1958 which will be referred to as the Rules is under impeachment before this Court. Those Rules were made by the Governor in the exercise of the power conferred on him by Article 234 of the Constitution. The conduct of a comprivate examination for the selection of the most suitable persons for appointment as Munsiffs was the main purpose of these Rules.2. Rule 6 directed the Mysore Public Service Commission which will be referred to as the Commission to conduct for that purpose a comprivate examination consisting of a written examination and a viva voce examination. The written examination was held on two days in 1960 and the viva voce examination commenced on March 1, 1961 and continued until March 10, 1961. On May 22, 1961 the Commission published a list of those candidat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1963CriLJ547
ORDERT.K. Tukol, J.1. This is a petition by accused No. 2 in Special Case No. 5 of 1961 on the file of the Special Judge, Belgaum, in which the present petitioner and one Dattatraya Gangdhar Samant stand charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 162 I.P.C.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: the present petitioner filed an application on 17-2-1962 in the Court of the Special Judge, Belgaum for grant of pardon under Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and treat him as an approver in the case as he was ready and willing to make a full disclosure of the true facts and circumstances relating to the pending prosecution. Dattatreya (Accused No. 1) objected to that application, while the Public Prosecutor expressed his assent on 26-2-1962 to the prayer made by the petitioner. The Special Judge heard the petition on 1-3-1962 and rejected the petition by an order date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys265
Narayana Pai, J. 1. The petitioners in these 16 Writ Petitions were applicants for selection by the Mysore Public Service commission for being appointed by the State Government as Assistant Engineers in the Public Works Department of the Government. The first respondent is the State Government, and the second the Mysore Public Service Commission. Some of the petitioners are Engineering Graduates seeking entry into Government Service for the first time and the others are already Junior Engineers in the Public Works Department of the Government, seeking appointment as Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment. None of the petitioners was selected by the Public Service Commission or appointed by the Government as Assistant Engineer. All of them pray that this Court may be pleased to quash by the issue of an appropriate Writ the Notification of the State Government bearing No. P. W. D. 10 SAG 59 dated 31st October 1961, whereby the Government appointed as Assistant Engineers 88 persons nam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Kant87; AIR1965Mys87
ORDER1. This petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act relates to the estate of one H. Channkeshava Iyengar who was a permanent resident of the City of Mysore and died in that city on 12-6-1959. He left a widow Venkatalakshmma, 3 daughters Lakshmma, Jayalakshamma and Vedavalli, and 4 sons Ramaswamy Iyengar, Lakshminarasimhan, Narayana and Krishnamurthy. The widow is the second petitioner; the first, third and the fourth sons are respectively petitioners 1, 3 and 4. The second son is respondent 1 and three daughters respondents 2, 3 and 4.(2) Excluding paras 1 and 2 giving addresses for service of parties, all material allegations are contained in para 3 of the petition.(3) The relationship stated above is set out in paragraph 3(1) of the petition.(4) In paragraph 3(2) of the petition it is stated that the deceased H. Channakeshava Iyengar had made a will on 1st June 1959 which was registered as Document No. 18 in Book III, Volume 50, pages 102-113 at the office of the Sub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant276; AIR1964Mys276
1. The only point urged in this appeal is that the plaint claim is barred by Order 11, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the point in issue are as follows:-- One Sesha Perjury executed a will on 4-6-1956 bequeathing all his properties to some of his relations. He died on 1-9-1956. Under the will, the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to get an annuity of 40 muras of rice. Out of these 40 muras, 20 muras are payable at the end of January of every year. The remaining 20 muras are payable at the end of March, every year. On 25-3-1957 the plaintiff filed a Small Cause Suit No. 126-57 on the file of the learned Munsiff, Mangalore, claiming the portion of the annuity payable at the end of January 1957. That plaint was returned to the plaintiff as that Court held that the suit should have been instituted as an original suit. The plaint was re-presented to the proper Court on 11-6-1957. The claim made in that suit was ultimately settled out...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1963]14STC711(Kar)
ORDERTukol, J. 1. These are two revision petitions by an assessee challenging the orders passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Bangalore, direction the issue of warrants under section 13(3)(b) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act for recovery of amounts due from him in regard to arrears of sales tax as if the amounts were fine imposed by him on the assessee. 2. The facts leading to the present proceedings are not in dispute. The petitioner is a dealer in potatoes. He was assessed to sales tax for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 under section 5(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, as amended by Act No. IX of 1958. The Commercial Tax Officer served a notice under section 13(2) of the Act on the petitioner on 4th April, 1962, requiring him to pay all the arrears of tax along with penalty on or before 16th April, 1962. On the petitioner's failure to pay the same within the aforesaid date, the Commercial Tax Officer field two petitions before the First Class Magistrate, Bangalor...
Tag this Judgment!