Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys179
T.K. Tukol, J.1. The appellants in the two cases filed Miscellaneous Application Nos. 18 and 19 of 1957 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bharwar, under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, praying for setting aside the auction sale held by the Mamlatdar on 22-11-1957 in execution of a decree in Special Darkhast No. 172 of 1935 transferred to the Collector for sale of certain lands attached in the execution proceedings. The petitioners alleged that there were several illegalities and material irregularities in the conduct of the sale and that as a consequence thereof, they (petitioners) had suffered substantial loss. The decree-holder resisted the applications by denying the alleged illegalities and irregularities and questioned the competency of the executing Court to entertain the petitions for setting aside the sale held by the Mamlatdar. In support of his contention the decree-holder relied upon the decision of this Court in Veerabhadrappa Saagappa ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant113; AIR1964Mys113
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of , the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Karwar, in Original Civil Suit Number 139/1955, in which the respondents 1 to 5 claimed damages in respect of the death of one Vithal Laxman Deshbhandari on 1st October 1954 as a result of a fatal accident caused to him by a motor vehicle driven by the second defendant, a motor driver employed by the first defendant. The plaintiffs brought the suit, out of which this appeal arose, under Section 1-A of; the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (Act XIII of 1855) on their own behalf and on behalf of the defendants 3 and 4, the parents of the deceased, on the ground that Vithal Laxman Deshbhandari's death was caused by the negligence, of the second defendant, for which the first defendant was responsible. The first plaintiff is the wife and plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the minor children of the deceased Vithal Laxman Deshbhandari who was working as a porter in the bus stand at Honavar.There...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Mys50; 1964CriLJ410; ILR1963KAR469; (1963)1MysLJ520
Sadasivayya, J.1. This Revision Case arises out of a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, South Kanara recommending that the order dated 22-9-1962 made by the Additional District Munsiff Magistrate, Udipi in P. R. C. No. 6 of 1962 committing the accused Seetharama to take his trial before the Court of Session for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, be quashed.In consequence of the said order of commitment, Seetharama had to, be tried in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1962, in the Court of the Sessions Judge, South Kanara. But, before the trial could commence, an application was filed by the counsel food the accused; that application purported to be under Sections 435 and 438 read with Sections 464 and 465 of (he Criminal Procedure Code. It was alleged in that application that from the documents referred to under Section 173 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code and produced before the Magistrate, there was every reason for the Magistrate to believe that the accused wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant187; AIR1964Mys187; (1963)1MysLJ596
T.K. Tukol, J.1. The appellant filed Miscellaneous Case No. 78 of 1953 in the Court of the District Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, for revocation of the probate granted to the first respondent on 1-8-1953 in respect of the will and codicil executed by the petitioner's mother Mrs. Florence Emellia Alphanso on the ground that the executor (Respondent No. 1) had sold the only immovable property comprising the estate fraudulently and collusively for a nominal sum of Rs. 20,400/- though in, fact the property was worth more than Rs. 30,000/-. Respondent No. 2 is the purchaser of the property. The respondents 1 and 2 questioned the maintainability of the application alleging that the ground mentioned in the petition for the revocation of the grant did not all within the scope of Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The learned District Judge upheld the contention of the two respondents and dismissed the application with costs.2. The sole point raised by Sri Govindaraju en behalf ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Kant95; AIR1965Mys95; 1965CriLJ456; (1964)1MysLJ538
M. Sadasivayya, J. (1) This revision case arises out of a reference made under Section 341 of the Cr. P.C. by the Second Additional District Munsiff-Magistrate, Mangalore. This pertains to accused No. 16 in Preliminary Register Case No. 4 of 1961 on the file of the said Magistrate. Accused No. 4 of 1961 on the file of the said Magistrate. Accused No. 16, along with some of the other accused in that case, has been charged for an offence punishable under section 395 of the I.P.C. and has been committed to take his trial, along with those accused, before the Court of Sessions at Mangalore. After so committing the said accused to take his trial before the Court of Session, the said committing Magistrate has made the present reference under section 341 of the Cr. P.C.(2) Shri M.K. Sreenivasa Iyengar, the learned High Court Government Pleader has appeared for the State; the 16th accused, though served with notice, has not appeared before this Court either in person or through counsel.(3) The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant67; AIR1964Mys67; ILR1963KAR788; (1963)2MysLJ122
N. Sreenivasa Rau, C.J.1. I agree with the conclusions arrayed at by my learned brother Mir Iqbal Husain, J., on all the questions arising in this case and with the proposed order dismissing the petition. As some of the points involved are of great importance, I am adding the following observations:2. The question of jurisdiction of the Court in which the petition was filed is one of some difficulty. It may also be mentioned that the petition itself does not contain any averment as to the place of residence of either party with reference to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Petitioner (husband) is, however, described as residing at Vaniambadi in North Arcot District, Madras State, and Respondent-I (wife) is stated to be a school mistress in Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court, Bangalore, to which the petition was present.3. Under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act a petition for dissolution of marriage has to be present...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant250; AIR1964Mys250; (1963)2MysLJ1
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. This case presents the question whether a government servant can as of right claim legal representation in disciplinary proceedings falling within Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The argument that he could, is advanced on behalf of the petitioner before us who was dismissed from the post of a Commercial Tax Officer on the accusation that he received a bribe.2. The material facts are these: On March 27, 1959, when a certain Krishnamurthy Rao, a hotel keeper of Chitradurga, complained at Bangalore to the Efficiency Audit andAnti-Corruption Department that the petitioner demanded a bribe, an Assistant Superintendent of Police of that department proceeded to Chitradurga and decided to set a trap. The currency notes proposed to be used at the trap were treated with a chemical and Krishnamurthy Rao was asked to deliver them to the petitioner and to make a signal when the bribe was received. On the night of March 28, 1959, Krishnamurthy Rao, according to his story, wal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1963)IILLJ694Kant
ORDERSomnath Ayyar, J.1. This case presents the question whether a Government servant can as of right claim legal representation in disciplinary proceedings falling within Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The argument that he could, is advanced on behalf of the petitioner before us who was dismissed from the post of a Commercial Tax Officer on the accusation that he received a bribe. 2. The material facts are these : On 27 March, 1959, when a certain Krishnamurthi Rao, a hotel-keeper of Chitradurga, complained at Bangalore to the Efficiency Audit and Anti-Corruption Department that the petitioner demanded a bribe, an Assistant Superintendent of Police of that department proceeded to Chitradurga and decided to set a trap. The currency notes proposed to be used at the trap were treated with a chemical and Krishnamurthi Rao was asked to deliver them to be petitioner and to make a signal when the bribe was received. On the night of 28 March, 1959, Krishnamurthi Rao, according to his story,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Mys52; 1964CriLJ413; (1963)2MysLJ39
ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 438 Cr. P. C, made by the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwar, recommending that this Court may be pleased to quash the order made by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gadag Division, Gadag, in Mis. Case No. 8 of 1958 on his file as the said order contravenes the provisions of Section 137 Cr. P. C. 2. Misc. Case No. 8/58 is a proceeding under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The preliminary order passed in that case reads thus: 'To Shri. Mahadevappa Goudappa Gudi of Korrgal Ori Gadag. Whereas it has been reported to me that you have put up a new building in toe open space tothe north of C. T. S. No. 25/2 of Gadag belonging to one Shri Basappa Mallappa Koppaud' of Gadag with the result that the walls of the building in C. T. S. No. 2155/2 are likely to collapse at any time on account of the heavy load, and likely to cause injury to the life of the neighbouring citizens. Now therefore, I Shri S.S. Moulv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant179; AIR1964Mys179; (1963)2MysLJ416
ORDER1. The plaintiff in this case is the landlord and the defendant is a mulgeni tenant and the tenancy was created in the year 1943. The landlord sued the tenant for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 520/- by way of damages for injury caused to him by the destruction of certain trees standing on the leased premises. The defendant admitted that he had destroyed five trees but pleaded justification for removing them besides raising a plea that such removal was within his rights. The Munsiff made a decree for a sum of Rs. 520/- but this decree was modified by the appellate Court by reducing the damages to a sum of Rs. 365/-. In this revision petition Mr. Raghavendrarao, the learned advocate for the tenant contends that both the Courts below were in error in assuming that any trees standing upon the property leased to the defendant had been removed by him.2. The Munsiff was of the view that as many as eleven trees had been cut but when it was urged before, the appellate Court that according t...
Tag this Judgment!