Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant165; AIR1959Mys165; ILR1958KAR249; (1958)36MysLJ519
ORDER1. The present petitioner was the defendant in S. C. Civil Suit No. 162 of 1955 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Kar-war. The respondents to this revision petition were the plaintiffs in that suit. The plaintiffs sought for the enforcement of two surety bonds which had been executed hy the present petitioner, when he stood surety for the defendants in another suit namely Original Suit No. 147/1952 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Karwar. Those two surety bonds were Exts. 18 and 25 in the suit before the trial Court. The teamed Civil Judge has given judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and has ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 500/- together with the costs of the suit mid future interest at 3 per cent per annum thereon. Aggrieved by this decision of the learned Civil Judge, the defendant has preferred the present revision petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged two main contentions. His first contentio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant1; AIR1959Mys1; ILR1958KAR288; (1958)36MysLJ580
Hombe Gowda, J.1. The appellant Basappa has been convicted of an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code for having falsely charged Basappa, son of Muruliah and nine others of Doddametikurke village in Arsikere Taluk of having committed the murder of one Basappa of the same village on the evening of 1-10-1952, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore Division in Hassan Sessions Case No. 4 of 1956 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.2. The relevant facts are as follows One Basappa, son of Maruliah. a resident of Doddame-tikurke village in Arsikere Taluk was found murdered in front of Anjaneya Temple of the village at about 10 P.M. on 1-10-1952. The appellant Basappa appeared before the Patel of the village and lodged information to the effect that Basappa, son of Maruliah and nine others of the village, who bore illwill against the deceased m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant13; AIR1959Mys13; (1958)36MysLJ655
ORDER1. The petitioner, the Union of India owning the Southern Railways, attacks in this petition a decree passed against it in Small Cause 63 of 1956 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Shimoga, filed by the respondent in the following circumstances:2. A firm called Shaw Moolchand Asharam and Co., of Ahmedabad delivered to the railway on 14-2-1.955 eight bales of cloth for despatch and delivery to the plaintiff at Shimoga. When the bales arrived at Shimoga railway station, it was discovered that one of the bales was loose and the stitches on it appeared to have been removed and subsequently restitched.The plaintiff having insisted on open delivery, such open delivery was given at Shimoga railway station on 17-3-1955. The record of the open delivery shows that the loose bale contained only 27 pieces as against the 32 mentioned in the Patties, and after deducting from the total yardage of 726 yards, according to the packing slip the actual length of 611 yards of the remaining 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant75; AIR1959Mys75; (1958)36MysLJ634
ORDERA. Narayana Pai, J.1. The petitioners before me have filed Original Suit No. 7/1958 before the Court of the District Munsiff of Mangalore for a declaration that the order of eviction passed by the appellate authority (the Principal Subordinate Judge of South Kanara) in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 11/1953 on his file is without jurisdiction, ultra vires and is a nullity, and for an injunction restraining the defendants (respondents before me) from executing the said order and taking possession of the house, door No. 22-4, with its outhouses and appurtenant land without payment of compensation for the said house.Along with the plaint they filed interlocutory application No. 14 of 1936 under Section 151 and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the issue of a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from executing the aforesaid eviction order and obtaining possession thereunder pending disposal of the suit.An ex parte injunction was granted, but the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant65; AIR1959Mys65; 1959CriLJ347; (1958)36MysLJ744
ORDERA. Narayana Pai, J.1. This revision petition raises an intricate point regarding the interpretation and effect Of Section 198-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure introduced for the first time by the amending Act XXVI of 1955. There is only one reported decision of a single Judge of the Bombay High Court dealing with this Section and that is found reported in C.B.L. Bhatnagar v. The State, : AIR1958Bom196 . The observations made in that judgment are relied upon by both sides in support of their respective contentions, although the decision itself does not finally conclude the controversy now before me for decision.2. The undisputed facts may be stated briefly. In the wake of the reorganization of States in 1956 there were some disturbances in Belgaum in consequence of which orders were issued under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also under Section 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act by the District Magistrate of Belgaum. Breaches of these orders were committed or attempt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant227; AIR1959Mys227; ILR1958KAR853
Mir Iqbal Hussain, J.1. This is a second appeal filed by the original plaintiff Basanna against defendant Appa Rao who is the first respondent and Somanna who is respondent 2. One Shivabai widow of Bhimanna was impleaded in the suit as second defendant. But as she died, her name was struck off in the trial Court itself. Plaintiff filed a suit in the court of the Munsiff, Gulbarga in O. S. No. 338/1 of 1952. He based his suit for possession of lands survey Nos. 94, 96, 97 and 100 to the extent of half towards the north, situated in Balgonda village, Gulbarga Taluk, and survey Nos. 10 and 37 to the extent of one-third towards the south of the same village. He also prayed for a declaration of shikmi in respect of all the lands.2. The plaintiff in the former suit alleged that he is the adopted son of one Bhimanna who was the original owner of the suit properties; that after adoption, he lived with the said Bhimanna and as such, as heir of Bhimanna, he was in possession of the suit properti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant265; AIR1959Mys265; ILR1959KAR168
N. Sreenivasa Rau, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act by claimants 6 and 7 against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mandya, holding that the reference made to him under Section 30 of the Act by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mandya, was incompetent.2. The circumstances leading to the order of the learned Subordinate Judge may be briefly narrated. The acquisition of 38 guntas in Survey No. 74 of R. Kodinalli village, Mandya Taluk, was notified in the Mysore Gazette of 19-3-1942 under Section 4 of the Act. The names of four persons who figured later as claimants 1 to 4 before the learned Subordinate Judge were mentioned as those of the Khatedars and Anubhavadars of the land as would appear from the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. In the enquiry before the Land Acquisition Officer no one else seems to have appeared.He made an award on 30-4-1944 directing that the amount determined by him as compensation was to be paid to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant127; AIR1959Mys127; (1958)36MysLJ945
ORDER1. This revision petition arises out of a suit brought by one Mohamad Hussain, who is the respondent in this revision petition, under the provisions of Section 9 of the specific Relief Act. His case was that he was the tenant of the petitioner in this revision petition. That landlord was defendant 3 in the original suit. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that one Kashimsaheb Gavas, who was not a party to the suit brought by the plaintiff, was the agent of the plaintiff who. under an agreement Exhibit 81, had to manage a hotel which the plaintiff was running in the leased premises, under the terms and conditions incorporated in that agreement. The plaintiff's allegation was that on 4-1-1956, defendant 3 the landlord took possession of the leased building otherwise than in due course of law in collusion with that agent Kashimsaheb Gavas. The plaintiff, therefore, brought a suit for recovery of possession of the leased property of which he was so dispossessed. The suit was resisted by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant139; AIR1959Mys139
ORDERA.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. This is a revision petition presented by a tenant against whom an application had been made by a person who claimed to be his landlord for his eviction on the ground that he was in default in regard to arrears of rent payable by him. On 6-10-1956, an order was made in those proceedings ex parte, ordering the eviction of the tenant. The tenant, thereupon, made an application on October 15, 1956, for getting that ex parte order set aside. The allegation that he made was that on the date on which the ex parte order was made against him he was present in Court although his advocate could not be present on account of his illness as a result of which he was being treated on that date in a private nursing home. According to him, when the case was called earlier in the day, although the tenant appeared before the Court, the-landlord did not. The case was accordingly kept by and was never called although he was waiting in the verandah of the court-hall till 5 p. m. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant244; AIR1959Mys244
S.S. Malimath, J.1. This second appeal involves a very important point of law. It is admitted in fact, it has been decided in a previous suit--that the wall in dispute between the houses of the plaintiff and the defendants is a party wall. The plaintiffs case is that the first defendant has built on that wall another portion nearly 6 1/2' high. As this has been done without the plaintiff's consent and as the defendant has no right to do so, the plaintiff has prayed for a mandatory injunction requiring that the wall be pulled down and brought back to its original position. The contention of defendant 1 was that it was a party wall in the sense that half of it on the defendant's side belonged to defendant 1 and the other half to the plaintiff. He also pleaded that he raised the wall with the plaintiff's consent. Defendant 2 contended that he had nothing to do with the suit wall and that he was unnecessarily made a party to the suit. At the trial, the first defendant did not press his con...
Tag this Judgment!