Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-30-1953
Reported in : AIR1953Kant156; AIR1953Mys156; ILR1953KAR440; (1954)32MysLJ12
Venkataramaiya, J.1. These are three petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of writs in the nature of Mandamus, certiorari or appropriate directions to the Government of Mysore on grounds which are substantially the same. These were heard together and may be conveniently disposed of by one order as the principal question raised in it whether Government can review orders regarding grant of agricultural lands. The facts which may be taken as undisputed are that the Petitioner in C. P. 155 of 51-52 was granted 3 acres in S. NO. 24 in Narsipur village, Arsikara Taluk, Hassan District on payment of Rs. 75/-, the appeal preferred by some persons to the Revenue Commissioner objecting to the grant was dismissed on 27-11-1944, that Government also dismissed on 22-2-1946 the appeal filed against the order of the Revenue Commissioner, that the application filed subsequently for review of the order was rejected by Government on 21-12-1949 but on a second petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-30-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Kant53; AIR1954Mys53
Venkata Ramaiva, J.1. The two appellants have been convicted under section 326 and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 8 years and 6 years respectively. The facts which may be taken to be established by the evidence are that one Kotrappa was beaten in a field near the village Chickamadapura, Challakere Taluk, on the morning of 13-1-1952, moved to the village in a cart within a short time and expired about an hour or two later. In Exhibit P-9 the earliest report of the occurrence the accused are mentioned to be the assailants and this is supported by the evidence of P. W. 14. The direct evidence to show that it is the accused who assaulted Kotrappa is only that of P. W. 14. P. Ws. have said that Kotrappa himself when questioned about the injuries shortly before his death attributed these to beating by accused.One of the witnesses says that the accused were running on the road near the place where Kotrappa was lying injured. From the medical certificate Exhibit P-6 it is seen that accused 1 s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-23-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Kant18; AIR1954Mys18
Vasudevamurthy, J. 1. The petitioner offered himself as a candidate for election to the Town Municipal Council, Hiriyur, and was declared duly elected at the elections on 12-3-1952. On 5-5-1952 there was an election for choosing a President of the Council and the petitioner stood as a candidate and was declared duly elected then also. Thereupon he appears to have entered upon his duties as President. Subsequently on 20-8-52 respondents 3 to 5 who are described as three other Municipal Councillors made an application to the Government purporting to be under Section 14, Mysore Town Municipalities Act, 22 of 1951, praying that the Government should declare that a vacancy had arisen in regard to a Municipal Councillorship of the 11th Division of the town out of which the petitioner had been elected and seeking his removal from the office of the President. On that application the Minister for Public Health and local Self-Government passed an order on 19-1-53 holding that Sri M. S. Avadhani,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-15-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Kant171; AIR1954Mys171
Mallappa, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit under consideration in this appeal for declaration that the acquisition of two shops mentioned in the plaint schedule by the Government at the instance of the Bangalore City Municipality is illegal and invalid and for an injunction restraining the defendants, that is, the Bangalore City Municipality and the Land Acquisition Officer from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs.2. The Government started acquisition proceedings at the instance of the Bangalore City Municipality, as it then was, for acquisition of the two shops now under consideration and a few other shops and according to the notification the acquisition was necessary for widening Rangaswamy Temple Street at the junction of the Avenue Road, Bangalore City, and for adding some land to SriSiddaroodaswami Mutt. As is clear from Ext. II, the plaintiff who is the owner of the two shops, objected to the acquisition on the ground that the two shops were separated by anot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-02-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Kant128; AIR1954Mys128
1. The plaintiff is the adoptive son of one Davegowda who had three younger brothers Halligowda, the natural father of the plaintiff, Annegowda and defendant 1 Karigowda. He died about 10 years before suit. Thereafter the plaintiff and his uncles were living together as member's of a joint Hindu family. The family is said to have owned moveable and immoveable properties described in the schedule to the plaint. Halligowda and Annegowda are said to have gone away from the joint family recently and had no right, title and interest in the suit properties. Defendant 1 had refused to give a share to the plaintiff and the suit has been brought for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to 2/5th share in the plaint schedule properties and for partition and possession of the same. Defendant 2 was later on added as a supplemental defendant and she is the adoptive mother of the plaintiff. She has joined the plaintiff in this appeal. 2. Defendant 1 pleaded that the plaintiff had been marrie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-23-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Kant78; AIR1954Mys78
1. These four Second Appeals arise from a suit for injunction mandatory and permanent with respect to a wall, passage and flow of water through a drain. Plaintiff is the owner of the building Municipal No. 2/25 and defendants who are two brothers own the property No. 2/24 to the east of the building in Chickpet Bangalore City. To the east of plaintiff's building and close to the wall there is a lane through which a drain is laid to serve as an outlet for all the refuse water of his house. For construction of two opposite rows of shops leaving some space between the two, after demolition of the existing shops at the southern end of No. 2/24 defendants obtained license from the City Corporation and for the purpose of the said construction girders are placed on the eastern wall of No. 2/25 causing some damage to it. The construction, if allowed to proceed, will lead to the disappearance of the existing drain and its being substituted by a new one in the passage provided for between the tw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-13-1953
Reported in : AIR1955Kant97; AIR1955Mys97; ILR1954KAR330; (1956)34MysLJ23
ORDER1. The question raised in this case is whether an order rejecting an application filed under Order 22, Rule 3, Civil P. C., for the respondents 1 and 2 being brought on record in place of a accessed petitioner, in an insolvency case is appealable.2. Two persons Ningamma and Thimme Gowda (sic) ed an application on 16-5-1944 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mysore, for one Boriah being adjudged Insolvent, The case was registered as (sic) C. No. 16 of 1943-44 are an order of adjudication was passed thereby on 8-1-1945. Without referring to what happened in the course of the subsequent proceedings it is sufficient for the purpose of this case to state that an application (sic)A. No. VI was filed on 24-5-51 by the respondents 1 and 2 alleging that Thimme Gowda 2nd petitioner in I. C. No. 16/43-44 died in February, 1951 and that they being his son and widow respectively may be impleaded as his legal representatives. The 3rd respondent in the original petition who is an alienee fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-05-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Kant122; AIR1954Mys122
1. The appellant-accused was tried by the Sessions Judge, Bangalore Division, for an offence under Section 302, I. P. C. but was convicted under Section 323, I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. The case against him was that on the evening of 8th June 1952 ho committed murder of one Rajagopal by squeezing his testicles near a mango garden beyond the limits of the Tumkur town. Of the three assessors, two were of the opinion that the accused was guilty while the third was doubtful. 2. The learned Sessions Judge fully believed the occurrence. He held that the accused had waylaid the deceased Rajagopal and had assaulted him and used criminal force against him by squeezing his testicles as a result of which he died in his house a few hours later. He found that the motive which prompted the accused to assault Rajagopal was clearly established by eviden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-03-1953
Reported in : AIR1955Kant76; AIR1955Mys76; (1956)34MysLJ61
1. O. S. No. 388/48-49 and O. S.No. 499/48-49 on the file of the Munsif of Davangere were brought by the Municipal CouncilDavangere City Municipality, and one EraniBasettappa respectively. In O. S. No. 388 of 48-49the Municipal Council prayed for a declarationof its title to a vacant piece of land measuring10 feet North to South and 100 feet East to westand for a permanent injunction restraining thedefendant from putting up any construction onit or otherwise interfering with the rights and possession of the plaintiff. In O. S. No. 499 of 48-49 the plaintiff Erani Easetappa prayed for a similar declaration that he was the owner of the same piece of land or in the alternative directing the Municipal Council to execute a sale deed conveying the same to him for the consideration of Rs. 500/- which had already been paid by him or for a proper title deed and for a similar injunction. Defendant 2 was impleaded in that suit as he was claiming some Interest in the site under a later grant from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-07-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Kant1; AIR1954Mys1
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. The appellant is a judgment-debtor who has failed in both Courts in his contention that the decree, execution of which, is sought by respondent 1, is inexecutable. The decree is for payment of money by the appellant and another. It was passed in the Court of the First Munsiff, Bangalore, on 28-8-1932 and transferred on the application of the decree-holder, more than once to the Court at Mysore where the appellant resides. The first order for transfer was made on 7-6-1935 in Execution Case No. 1048 of 34-35, the second was On 22-7-1938 in Execution Case No. 1092 of 37-33, the next one was in Execution Case No. 949 of 40-41 on 14-10-1941. After this, Execution Case No. 643/41-42 was filed in the First Munsiff's Court Mysore, for executing the decree but dismissed on 29-5-1942 on account of non-payment of process. Transfer of the decree was again applied for in Execution Case No. 547/42-43 on the file of the First Munsif, Banealore, and obtaining order for the same o...
Tag this Judgment!