Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant222; AIR1960Mys222; ILR1960KAR130
Somnath Iyer, J. (1) The plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, was an young man who was prosecuting his studies in the Government College, Mangalore, in the year 1950. On 5-8-1950, when he was proceeding to the Rationing Office in Mangalore on a bicycle with his friend P.W. 4, along a road known as Kadri road, a motor vehicle belonging to the Civil Supplies Department of the State of Madras, bearing Register No. M. S. C. 9714, which, according to the plaintiff, was being driven at an excessive speed, knocked him down in front Beedi Factory, situate in that road. As a result of that accident, the plaintiff lost consciousness which he partially regained in the hospital to which he was admitted as an inpatient about midnight on that date. He became fully conscious only five days after his admission to the hospital where he was treated for the injuries sustained by him during the accident.(2) Ext. A-3, a certificate prepared by P.W. 2, who was the Medical Officer in charge of that hos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant139; AIR1960Mys139; ILR1959KAR1019
Hegde, J.(1) The only point argued before us is that the respondent had no right to file an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, apportioning the compensation. According to Sri Gopivallabha Iyengar, an order passed under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, is not a 'decree' as it is not a decision in a suit. In support of his contention he has relied on the ratio of the decision in Rajagopala Chettiar v. Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras, : AIR1934Mad103 . That was a case arising under S. 84 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act.But there is no doubt that its ratio decidendi helps the appellant. The High Court in India have consistently taken the view that a decision under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, is a 'decree' and as such the aggrieved party has a right of appeal. See Mahalinga Kudumban v. Theetharappa Mudaliar, AIR 1929 Mad 223: Venkata Reedi v. Adhinarayana, : AIR1929Mad351 ; Muthuvijaya Raghunatha v. Karuppiah. AIR 1939 Mad 76 and Reghunathdas H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant152; AIR1961Mys152
1. This is an appeal by the four defendants in Original Suit No. 11 of 1953 on the file of the Court of the District Judge of Bangalore, directed against the decree passed therein for partition of family properties. The plaintiff Lalithamma filed the suit claiming her share to which she was entitled under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Hindu Law Women's 'Rights Act, Mysore Act X of 1933. The plaintiffs husband Hanumiah and the 1st defendant Malugiriappa are sons of one Settappa.They had another brother called Arasappa. The three brothers were living together as members of a joint Hindu family governed By Mitakshara Law. Arasappa took his share and left the family on the 28th Match, 1938, on which date he executed what is described in the evidence as a release deed, Ex. P-l; he appears to have taken a house and certain minor items as and for his share. Thereafter the two brothers Hanumiah and Melugiriappa continued undivided,Hanumiah died issueless in September, 1943....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant69; AIR1961Mys69; 1961CriLJ398
ORDER1. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwar has made this reference in regard to proceedings in six criminal cases pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Third Court Cadag. The reference was made in consequence of revision petitions filed in each of the cases by the same person, Ranganagowda, who was arrayed as an accused in each one of the cases. The circumstances leading to the revision petitions are narrated in the order of the learned Judge resulting in the reference. In brief, it may he stated that in the course of investigation of a complaint of theft, the house of Ranganagowda was searched on 15-7-1952 and a large number of articles were seized. On the basis of the identification of articles by various persons who had laid complaints before the Police in respect of thefts alleged to have taken place from 25-6-1949 onwards the Cadag Town Police placed ten charge-sheets against Ranganagowda and others. While Ranganagowda figured in each one of the ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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
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
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
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
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
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!