Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-24-1959
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!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-03-1959
Reported in : AIR1960Kant53; AIR1960Mys53
Hegde, J.(1) This appeal arises from the decree passed in Original Suit No. 118 of 1950 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bellary. The defendant in that suit is the appellant in this appeal and the plaintiff is the respondent.(1a) The plaintiff sued in a representative capacity and prayed that an account be taken of the moveable and immovable properties of late Moola Venkata Rangiah and the same may be administered under the decree of the court. A preliminary decree in terms prayed for has been granted. Aggrieved by this decision, the defendant has to come up in appeal.(2) The plaintiff claims to be a creditor of the deceased Moola Venkata Rangian, the husband of the defendant. Late Moola Venkata Rangiah died intestate on 16-6-1948. According to the plaintiff he had executed Exhibit A-19 promissory note for a sum of Rs. 44,000/- in his favour for valid consideration. During his lifetime he had made some payments towards the amount due under Exhibit A-19 and endorsed the same there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-06-1959
Reported in : AIR1959Kant185; AIR1959Mys185; 1959CriLJ881
1. The Criminal Appeals 321, 326 and 327 of 1957 have been heard together. The appellant in these three appeals was the accused in Sessions Cases Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of 1957, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Belgaum. In the year 1952-53 and for some years prior to that, the accused was a Village Postman who was attached to Katkol Branch Post Office, which was under the Gokak Post Office.The village Chikop was within the beat of the accused. In the course of his duties as such postman he had been on trusted with three V. P. P. articles, each of them being of the value of Rs. 25/-and odd for delivery to the addressee Vaikunthaswami or Venkataswami Nirupadimath. One of these three was parcel hearing No. 80, which is material for the purposes of Sessions Case No. 22 of 1957; the remaining two, namely parcel No. 74 and parcel No. 59 are dealt with in Sessions cases Nos. 23 and 24 respectively.In each of these cases, it had been alleged by the prosecution that the addressee was a fictitious...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-06-1959
Reported in : AIR1960Kant260; AIR1960Mys260; ILR1959KAR585
(1) Defendant No. 1 in the suit is the appellant before me. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was instituted by the plaintiff claiming as reversioner of one Hanamgouda, deceased, for possession of the suit land. Defendant No. 2 is the widow of the said Hanamgouda. She executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 of the suit properties for a sum of Rs. 1200/-. The widow remarried in the year 1948.Thereafter, this suit was filed on 4-8-1951 by the plaintiff claiming to be reversionary heir of the said Hanamgouda. The plaintiff's case was that the sale in favour of defendant No. 1 was not supported by legal necessity. His further case was that the suit land being watan property, which is an admitted fact, the sale deed is void by virtue of section 5 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act.(2) Defendant No. 1 alone contested this suit. His case was that there was legal necessity for the sale and he being a stranger to the watan section 5 of the Bombay Hereditary offices Act had n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-23-1959
Reported in : AIR1959Kant260; AIR1959Mys260; 1959CriLJ1454; ILR1959KAR407
ORDER1. This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order passed by the Judicial Magistrals, First Class, Ramdrug in C. C. No. 331 of 1957. By the afore-said order the learned Magistrate committed the four respondents and nine others to take their trial on charges under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 149. 302. 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Coda and 19(e) and (f) of the Indian Arms Act in the Court of the Sessions Judge at Belgaum. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who perused the records and heard the arguments addressed to him on behalf of the respondents, is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Magistrate committing the accused in C.C. No. 331 of 1957 to take their trial in the Court of Session without examining all the witnesses who had been cited in the charge-sheet as wit-nesses for the incident is illegal and therefore the order should be quashed.The learned Additional...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-25-1959
Reported in : AIR1960Kant71; AIR1960Mys71; 1960CriLJ493
Sadasivayya, J. (1) This Criminal Revision Case arises out of a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Bijapur under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The facts and circumstances which have led to this reference, are as follows:The First Class Magistrate of Jamkhandi by his order dated 4-12-1958 made in Juvenile (Crl.) Case No. 1/58 on the file of his Court committed the present respondent, who is a juvenile offender for taking his trial before the Court of Session, Bijapur, for offences under Sections 454 and 395 of the Indian penal Code and also for voluntarily causing hurt to the complainant, one Bhagavva, while committing the said other offences. The learned Sessions Judge, taking, the view that by virtue of Section 13 of the Bombay Children Act, 1948, the Magistrate himself should have proceeded with the trial of the juve ile offender, has made the present reference and has prayed that the order of commitment be quashed under Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-14-1959
Reported in : AIR1961Kant12; AIR1961Mys12
N. Sreenivasa Rau, Offg. C.J.1. One Ramreddy as the agent of one Sangamma preferred a complaint on 12-12-1958 before the District Magistrate, Bidar, against one Manikreddy and three others in respect of offences under Sections 447 and 440 of the I. P. C. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused persons, armed with lathies and axes, trespassed on Sangamma's land situated in Myloor village, Bidar Taluka, at about 10 or 11 p.m. on 14-9-1958, that the object of Manikreddy was to take illegal possession of the land in spite of the fact that the Civil Court as well as the Criminal Court had decided that Sangamma was entitled to possession of the land and the Civil Court had restrained Manikreddy from interfering with Sangarmma's possession, that the complainant gave information of the occurrence to the Police Station, Bidar Rural, that though a first information report dated J5-9-1958 had been issued the investigation of the case had not been proceeded with as the Polite Circle Inspe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-14-1959
Reported in : 1961CriLJ111
N. Sreenivasa Rau, Offg. C.J.1. One Ramreddy as the agent of one Sangamma preferred a complaint on 12-12-1958 before the District Magistrate, Bidar, against one Manikreddy and three others in respect of offences under Sections 447 and 440 of the I.P.C. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused persons, armed with lathies and axes, trespassed on Sangamma's land situated in Myloor village, Bidar Taluka, at about 10 or 11 p.m. on 14-9-1958, that the object of Manikreddy was to take illegal possession of the land in spite of the fact that the Civil Court as well as the Criminal Court had decided that Sangamma was entitled to possession of the land and the Civil Court had restrained Manikreddy from interfering with Sangamma's possession, that the complainant gave information of the occurrence to the Police Station, Bidar Rural, that though a first information report dated 15-9-1958 had been issued the investigation of the case had not been proceeded with as the Polite Circle Inspecto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-03-1959
Reported in : AIR1960Kant299; AIR1960Mys299; ILR1959KAR495
Hegde, J.(1) The appellant (plaintiff) sued the respondent (defendant) her husband to recover a sum of Rs. 4,320/- as arrears of 6 years' past maintenance. She also prayed for a decree for future maintenance, at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month. They were married about 18 years prior to the suit. For some time they lived cordially. The appellant has no issued. In about 1942-43, the respondent took a second wife. It is now admitted that even after the second marriage, the appellant lived with her husband for about two years. Ever since then she has been living separately with her parents. According to the appellant, she was treated cruelly by her husband; she was assaulted by him a number of times; and hence it was not possible for her to live with him. She further pleads that he deserted her.On the basis of these allegations, she claimed separate maintenance as mentioned above. She also contends that she is entitled to the separate maintenance claimed in view of section 2(4) of the Hindu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-07-1959
Reported in : AIR1960Kant267; AIR1960Mys267
Iqbal Husain, J.(1) Though the facts of this appeal are simple, a few interesting questions of law are raised. Chatram Puttappa Sons is a joint Hindu family firm doing business as nut and Mandy merchants at Bangarpet., Kolar District. They are the appellants before this Court. The respondents are some of their creditors. The latter filed an application under the provisions of sections 7 and 9 of the Mysore Insolvency Act to adjudge the appellants as insolvents on the ground that the respondent's are unable to pay their debts and have committed acts of insolvency. Though in the petition filed by the respondents several acts of insolvency are alleged, they confine their attention to only one both before the District Judge, Bangalore, as well as before this Court, viz. that they are unable to pay their debts and have given notice of suspension of payment.(2) The appellants sent a registered notice to several of their creditors as per Exhibit P. 4 dated 24-6-1955 that they are unable to me...
Tag this Judgment!