Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1954Kant134; AIR1954Mys134
Vasudevamurthy, J1. The plaintiff is the widow of one K. Srinivasaiya who died on 8-9-1945 at Koppa. He had insured his life with the defendant company for Rs. 3000/- and the plaintiff sued to recover that sum after the death of the insured. The defendant company denied their liability to pay any sum under the policies on three grounds: first that the insured had suppressed certain material facts and had made some false and fraudulent statements in his proposal and personal declaration forms, which circumstance vitiated the policy; secondly, that the insured had committed suicide and as the same was within 13 months of the date of insurance the contract under the insurance policy had become void and could not be enforced: and thirdly, that the insured had speculated on his life by insuring for much larger sums than he could afford and his taking up the insurance policies of the company in those circumstances was not a 'bona fide' act on his part. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Chick...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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
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
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
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
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
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
Reported in : AIR1954Kant102; AIR1954Mys102
Medapa, C.J.1. It will be necessary for a proper consideration of the arguments advanced in the case to set out in some detail the facts and circumstances which have led up to, and relevant for the disposal of this petition.The petitioner and the respondents were duly nominated candidates for election to the Mysore State Legislative Assembly from the Tarikere Constituency at the general elections held in this State on 4-1-1952. Respondents 5 to 9 withdrew their candidature within the prescribed time and as a result only the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 contested the elections. In the elections the petitioner secured 8093 votes as against 8059, 6239, 1644 and 1152 votes obtained by respondents 1 to 4 respectively. The Returning Officer thereupon declared the petitioner as the successful candidate in the election and the said declaration was published in the Mysore Gazette on 11-2-1952 as per the provisions of Section 67, Representation of the People Act, 1951.The petitioner lodged ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1954Kant93; AIR1954Mys93; ILR1954KAR70; (1954)32MysLJ33
Medapa, C.J.1. The facts of the case which led up to this appeal have been set out in full in the judgment of the trial court as also in the judgment of my learned brother Justice Sri B. Vasudevamurthy which I have had the advantage of perusing; they need not therefore be reiterated. This appeal was directed to be placed before a Pull Bench as its disposal involved a consideration, rather a reconsideration of the views of this High Court on a very important point of Hindu Law, regarding which a definite view had been taken from a long time. The necessity for the reconsideration arose on account of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in -- 'pannalal v. Mt. Narainl' : [1952]1SCR544 (A). The important point of Hindu Law referred to above is whether the pious obligation of a son to discharge his father's debt arises during the lifetime of his father. The point, as al-ready stated, was well settled in Mysore. The views of the High Courts outside the State were also equally definite a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1954Kant177; AIR1954Mys177
Venkataramaiya, J.1. The main question for determination in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek recovery of the amount advanced by him on the mortgage of two items of property described in the plaint schedule, by means of sale thereof through Court. Exhibit A dated 20-4-1946, on the terms of which the decision depends is styled as a document of mortgage with possession. After reciting that a sum of Rs. 650/- is received from the mortgagee and the properties are left in his possession for a period of two years, it states that immediately after the expiration of the said period the mortgagor will pay the amount to the mortgagee and in case of default the mortgagee may continue to be in possession of the properties. Defendant 1 and his wife defendant 2 have executed the document stating that they have signed it also as guardians of their three minor sons defendants 3, 4 and 5. Defendant 5 died during the pendency of the suit.2. The suit from which this appeal arises w...
Tag this Judgment!