Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1957Kant1; AIR1957Mys1; ILR1956KAR129
Venkataramaiya, C.J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Full Bench by the Division Bench before which it was posted for hearing as doubt was felt about the correctness of the view expressed in 47 Mys HCR 337 (A),. on the question of limitation. It was held in that case 'if therefore at the time when the puisne mortgagee sues to enforce the first mortgage by virtue of subrogation a suit by the first mortgagee is barred by time, the puisne mortgagee's suit is equally barred by time. This is the position which is accepted by the Calcutta, Madras and Patna rulings ..... Limitation counts fromthe date on which the money under the first mortgage became due and not from the date on which the subsequent mortgagee paid it off whether the money paid was still due under the mortgage or under a decree obtained on that mortgage'.Applying this principle, the lower Court has dismissed a suit filed by a person in the position of a co-mortgagor for recovery of amounts paid by him in excess of his lia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1957Kant20; AIR1957Mys20; ILR1956KAR234
Venkataramaiya, C.J.1. Both these appeals under the Land Acquisition Act in which parties are the same may be disposed of by one order The only point for consideration is the amount payable as compensation. The properties are buildings situated in Mysore near Sayyaji Rao Road at the extremity of Lansdown Buildings. One case relates to those numbered by the Municipality as 77 to 83 and the other to what bore the number 83/1. The claim regarding the latter for increasing the amount paid by the lower Court may be first dealt with. This is said to have been a residential building facing a lane behind a row of shops.The structure was old. Its doors and windows were in a decayed condition and at the time of acquisition was not in occupation of any one but used as a godown. The lover court has accepted the value of this at Rs. 925/- but increased the value of the ground from Rs. 2/- to Rs. 10/- per square yard. This appears to be fair and appellant's counsel has not pointed out anything to ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1957Kant68; AIR1957Mys68; 1957CriLJ985; ILR1956KAR414; (1957)35MysLJ76
1. This is an unfortunate case in which the Appellant who is aged about 30 years stands convicted of offences under Sections 302 and 324, I P. C., for having caused hurt to his mother and death of his father by striking them with a knife on the morning of 24th September 1955 apparently for the reason that the mother tried to persuade him not to injure himself with the knife and the father approached him in horror when there was a cry about the mother being stabbed. The fact that the appellant inflicted wounds on himself, that the mother in fright rushed towards him that she was stabbed with the same instrument, that on arrival of the father he too was struck and killed on the spot is not and cannot be disputed as there is ample evidence-particularly that of his own mother and a neighbour who was present at the time. After the incident the appellant threw the knife aside and stayed unmoved. The examination by the doctor disclosed that the father was dead because of the wounds on the vit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1958Kant48; AIR1958Mys48; 1958CriLJ529; ILR1957KAR159
1. This is an appeal by the State of Mysore against the order dated 9-3-1956, passed by the Sessions Judge, Mysore Division, in Mandya Sessions Case No. 9 of 1956, acquitting the accused of an offence under Section 304, I. P. C.2. The case for the prosecution is that on 29-11-54 when all the inmates of the house had gone out to the fields leaving the accused and his old father, the former is alleged to have beaten the latter with an axe and a stone. The result was that the old man lay unconscious and was taken to the hospital at Malavalli. The Doctor found that his condition was serious and that it needed X-Ray examination. He was therefore, sent to the Mandya Hospital the same day. But he died there at 6-15 p.m. on 2-12-1954. The respondent is a boy aged about 30 years. He was charged with the offence under Section 304, Part II but he pleaded 'not guilty'. The learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1958Kant150; AIR1958Mys150; 1958CriLJ1489
H. Hombe Gowda, J.1. These two appeals are against the judgment dated the 7th November, 1956 of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Division, in Bangalore Sessions Case No. 29 of 1956 convicting and sentencing all the three appellants Govinda Reddy, Krishna and Muniswamy (Accused Nos. 3, 1 and 2 respectively in the trial Court) of the following, offences :--(1) under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on six counts and sentencing each of the appellants to the extreme penalty of law on each of those counts; (2) under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years; (3) under Section 457 read with. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years; (4) under Section 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant168; AIR1959Mys168; (1958)36MysLJ421
ORDER1. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. He filed O. S. 140/46-47 on the file of the Second Munsiff, Bangalore for possession of the suit properties and also for mesne profits. The suit was decreed. Later no be filed I. N No. 10 under Order XX Rule 12 C. P. C. for ascertaining the mesne profits. The teamed Munsiff assessed the mesne profits at Rs. 185/- and passed an order accordingly on 16-6-1954. But in that order lie also mentioned that the required court fee shall he paid within 15 days and if not so paid the I. A. will stand dismissed.The learned counsel for the petitioner says that this portion of the order was not mentioned in the 'A' Diary. He had applied for a copy of the order on 18-6-1954, but he was given that copy only on 13-9-1954. Meanwhile on 6-7-1954 the learned Judge dismissed I. A. 10 on the ground that the court lee in question had not been paid. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this order was also passed in chambers and he was not aware of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1958Kant136; AIR1958Mys136; ILR1957KAR339; (1958)36MysLJ172
ORDER1. This petition arises out of an order made by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Mysore, awarding compensation of Rs. 100/-under Section 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Petitioner before me instituted a small cause suit in the said Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mysore, for arrears of rent on 1-2-1952. On that very day he obtained an order of attachment of an immoveable property of the defendant before judgment. On 6-3-1952, the defendant filed his objections to the said attachment, and on that day he also filed an application under Section 95 C. P. C., for compensation. On 14-11-1952 the suit was decreed. It is not clear as to what happened with regard to the attachment which had been levied. The application for compensation was, however, taken up and an order was made on 16-11-1954, by the learned Subordinate Judge awarding Rs. 100/- as compensation to the defendant. It is against that order that the present petition has been filed. 2. Before me it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1958Kant184; AIR1958Mys184; (1958)36MysLJ150
S.R. Das Gupta, C. J. 1. This application relates to the validity of an order made by the learned Judge who decided an election case By which he ordered that the election of the petitioner be set aside and respondent 1 be declared duly elected. The matter arises in this way :The election in question was held on 3-6-1957, to Ward No. 5 of the Athani Municipality, Belgaum District. On 5-6-1957, the scrutiny was made and the results were declared. The petitioner was declared elected along with two others, it being a three-seated constituency. Respondent 1 before us, applied to the District Judge, Belgaum on 12-6-1957, for setting aside the election and for an order that he should be declared elected.The grounds taken by the respondent in his said application inter alia were that there were corrupt practices committed in the said election and there was partiality of one Kulakarni who was the Chairman of the Municipality and the Chairman of the scrutiny committee. It was also alleged that c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1958Kant116; AIR1958Mys116; (1958)36MysLJ91
N. Sheenivasa Rau, J. 1. The Appellant was the owner of a motor lorry. The respondent is the father of one Annayya who died on 19-3-1956 in consequence of injuries sustained by him when the lorry had been taken out for bringing a load of stones. The Respondent claimed compensation as a dependent of Annayya under the Workmen's Compensation Act on the ground that the fatal accident arose out of and in the course of Annayya's employment as a cleaner of the lorry under the Appellant., It was contended by the Appellant that Annayya had not been his employee and that the accident had not arisen out of and in the course of employment. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, however, upheld the claim and awarded compensation on the basis that Annayya was getting monthly wages of Rs. 60/-. 2. In this appeal though the Appellant challenged the correctness of the Commissioner's finding that Annayya was a workman under the Appellant and the quantum of compensation awarded, the learned Counsel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1958Kant138; AIR1958Mys138; 1958CriLJ1205; (1958)36MysLJ175
ORDER1. The petitioners are the accused in. C. C. No. 2038 of 1957 on the file or the First Class Magistrate, Bangalore. They are accused of an offence under Section 302, I. P, C. The case is at the stage of preliminary enquiry. In the course of the cross-examination of p. w. 2, his statement under Section 162, Criminal P. C., was marked as Exhibit D-3. Exhibit D-3 was read out to the witness.He was asked as to whether certain facts deposed to by Win in court are found in that statement. By this process the learned Advocate for the accused wanted to establish certain omission. During the re-examination, the Prosecutor wanted to explain the omissions in question with reference to a further statement made by the witness to the police during the investigation.This was objected to by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The basis of his objection was that he had contradicted the witness with reference to a statement made by him to the Police on 15-9-1957 at 7-30 a. m. whereas re-examin...
Tag this Judgment!