Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-22-1960
Reported in : AIR1960Kant313; AIR1960Mys313
ORDER(1) Vires of Rule 4(a) of the Rules framed under Sec 25 of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951(Mysore Act No. XXX of 1951)(which shall be hereinafter called the ''Act') comes up consideration in this revision petition.(2) The relevant facts are as follows: The petitioner is the landlord in respect of House No. 3, Malton Road, Civil Station, Bangalore; the said premises fell vacant sometime in January 1960; the petitioner reported that vacancy to the Rent controller (who shall be hereinafter called 'controller') on 16-1-1960; the Controller intimated that vacancy to the deputy Commissioner at Bangalore who wrote back to the Controller asking him to allot that house to respondent 1(who shall be hereinafter referred to as respondent) who belongs to the Indian Police Service and at present serving in the Department of Efficiency Audit, Bangalore; in compliance with this intimation, the controller allotted the premises in question to the respondent; the allotment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-14-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Kant178; AIR1961Mys178
1. The plaintiff-respondent in Original Suit No. 494 of 1951-52 in the Court of the First Munsiff at Bangalore, sued the appellant-defendant, in a sum of Rs. 1000/- as damages for (1) slandering his title to the property offered as security for the loan to be granted by the State Government as per their order No. A.F. 6850/2A.H. 66-30-2 dated 13-11-1950; (2) for defaming him; and (3) for inducing the Government to cancel the loan which had been sanctioned and thereby interfering with the implementation of the contract. The trial Court decreed the suit claim as prayed for holding that the defendant had slandered the title of the plaintiff to the property offered as security for the loan proposed to be advanced by the Government and that he (defendant) induced the Government to cancel the loan which had been sanctioned. The first appellate Court while it agreed with the finding of the trial Court in all respects thought that the ends of justice will be met if a consolidated sum of Rs. 50...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-31-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Kant21; AIR1961Mys21; 1961CriLJ120; ILR1960KAR571
1. This appeal and the reference arise out of Sessions Case No. 17 of 1959 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharwar, in which the appellant Basappa Bhimappa Dodmani having been tried on a charge of having committed the murder of one Fakirappa Kariyappa Dodmani by stubbing him with a knife at about 5 p.m. on the 3rd of August, 1958, was found guilty of the offence and was sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge subject to confirmation by this Court. The reference is for the confirmation of the sentence and in the appeal by the accused the contention is that he should have been acquitted.2. The case for the prosecution is a very simple one. According to them, when deceased Fakirappa was sitting on the katta of his house, the accused-appellant came to the place burling abuses at him; when Fakirappa got down from the katta and asked the accused to keep quiet, the accused clashed agaiast Fakirappa and when Fakirappa further asked him whether he proposed to beat him, he said that he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-10-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Kant106; AIR1961Mys106
1. This appeal under the provisions of Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, which will hereafter he referred to as the Act, is presented by a returned candidate whose election to the House of the People was declared void by an Election Tribunal. 2. The notification of the President under Section 14 of the Act, calling upon the Parliamentaryconstituencies to elect members to the House or the People was promulgated on January 19, 1957. 3. The Parliamentary constituency with which we are concerned in this appeal was known as the Koppal Parliamentary constituency, in the district of Raichur. The area of that constituency was that which consisted of eight Assembly Constituencies. Three of those constituencies were in the district of Bellary and they were Shirguppa, Hospet and Hedagali. The five constituencies which were in the district of Raichur were Kushtagi, Sindhanoor, Gangavati, Koppal and Yelburga. 4. The election commenced on February 25, 1957, and continued till Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-10-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Kant247; AIR1961Mys247
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. Respondents 3 and 4 who were Excise Assistant Inspectors in the service of the new State of Mysore were promoted as Excise Inspectors in December, 1958. The petitioner who is an Excise Assistant Inspector of that State seeks their removal by quo-warrantor from their posts and his own appointment by mandamus to one of them. He applies for a further direction that, after his appointment in that way, he should be placed, in the list of seniority, above respondent 5, who, although appointed as Excise Inspector in December, 1957, is, according to him, is junior in the service of the State.2. The dates on which these four persons entered the service of the former State of Mysore and those on which they were promoted as Excise Assistant Inspectors arc set out in the following tabular statement:--NameRank inthe provisional Inter-State Seniority list.Date of employment. Date ofpromotion as Excise Assistant InspectorRudraradhya(Petitioner)1213-7-194514-9-1949Chikkarangiah(Res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-29-1960
Reported in : AIR1960Mys203; 1960CriLJ1112; ILR1960KAR471
ORDER(1) This revision petition arises from the decision of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gadag, in Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 1957 on his file, which was a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After examining the evidence before him, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, came to the conclusion that Party No. 1 was in possession of the lands in dispute. Consequently he passed the necessary order under Section 145(6) Cr.. P. C. As against that order, the party No. II has come up in revision to this court.(2) The only point argued before this Court is that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate was not competent to enquire into the dispute as the very dispute was the subject matter of the suit in I. C. Suit No. 49 of 1957 on the file of the Civil Judge Gadag, which was pending trial at the time the order under revision was passed. This contention does not appear to have been taken either before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate or before the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-12-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Kant62; AIR1961Mys62
1. Two questions of law have been, urged by Sri Vedant Iyengar, the learned Counsel for the appellant, in support of his appeal. Firstly he contended that on the proved facts of the case the Courts below were wrong in opining that the respondent (first defendant) is a bona fide purchaser of (be suit property and that he is entitled to any benefit under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, Secondly he urged that under any circumstances the plaintiff should have been given the option of either paying the value of the improvements effected by the respondent or to sell the suit property to him; The Courts below were not right in directing the respondent to purchase the right of the plaintiff. 2-3. As found by the Courts below, the plain-riff appellant is the prior purchaser of the suit property and thus he had acquired a valid little to the suit property. The sale in Favour of the predecessor-in-title of the respondent under Exhibit IV being of a later date, the same cannot affect t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-16-1960
Reported in : AIR1960Kant289; AIR1960Mys289
(1) This Appeal arises out of the proceedings instituted for removing the obstruction to the delivery of possession of a house situated in Bangalore City. An application was filed under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present appellant in the capacity of a purchaser of the said property in Court sale. Respondent No. 1 obstructed the delivery proceedings on the ground that he had purchased the said property from the original owner thereof and had also discharged the prior usufructuary mortgage of the said property in favour of one Adiramaiah Setty.He also got possession of the said property and was subrogated to his rights. Respondents 2 and 3 are the tenants of the said property under the first respondent. The respondents' contentions were upheld by the trial Court. In appeal by the present appellant, the learned Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, while dismissing the appeal ordered that he is entitled to resist the delivery proceedings till the amou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-25-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Kant131; AIR1961Mys131; ILR1960KAR1270
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J. 1. This petition raises a very important question relating to the Bombay Tenancy Act, The question broadly put is whether relief against forfeiture can be given under the said Act in cases where there are more than two defaults.2. A large number of cases which are on the list would depend for their decision on a decision of this question. For the sake of convenience we permitted all the learned advocates who appear for the landlords in those cases as also all the learned advocates who appear for the tenants in those cases to argue this question before us. This question, therefore, was argued before us from all possible points of view and we had the fullest assistance from the learned advocates who appeared and argued their respective contentions before us.3. The facts which led up to the filing of the present petition may be shortly stated as follows: The petitioner was the tenant of the suit land. Respondents 2 and 3 are the landlords and they filed an application...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-07-1960
Reported in : ILR1961KAR84; (1961)ILLJ479Kant
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J. 1. The question, which has been referred to us for decision, shortly stated, arises as follows. 2. The petitioner was directly recruited as an upper division clerk. His first appointment was as junior assistant, Political Department. On 18 September 1943 he was transferred on deputation of the Rationing Department, which was a temporary department. In that department he rose up to the position of a Rationing Officer and was drawing a sum of Rs. 460. On 1 March, 1954 the Rationing Department which, as I said, was a temporary department, ceased to exist and the petitioner was thereupon reverted to his parent department. Instead of being reposted to the Political Department he was first posted to the Labour Department and then to the Public Works Department. The pay which was fixed on such reversion was Rs. 120. The petitioner's case is that when he went on deputation on 18 September, 1943 he was confirmed in the post of junior assistant on a pay of Rs. 120 in the gra...
Tag this Judgment!