Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-29-1960
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
Decided on : Feb-10-1960
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
Decided on : Apr-12-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Kant62; AIR1961Mys62
1. Two questions of law have been, urged by Sri Vedant Iyengar, the learned Counsel for the appellant, in support of his appeal. Firstly he contended that on the proved facts of the case the Courts below were wrong in opining that the respondent (first defendant) is a bona fide purchaser of (be suit property and that he is entitled to any benefit under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, Secondly he urged that under any circumstances the plaintiff should have been given the option of either paying the value of the improvements effected by the respondent or to sell the suit property to him; The Courts below were not right in directing the respondent to purchase the right of the plaintiff. 2-3. As found by the Courts below, the plain-riff appellant is the prior purchaser of the suit property and thus he had acquired a valid little to the suit property. The sale in Favour of the predecessor-in-title of the respondent under Exhibit IV being of a later date, the same cannot affect t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-14-1960
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
Decided on : Apr-16-1960
Reported in : AIR1960Kant289; AIR1960Mys289
(1) This Appeal arises out of the proceedings instituted for removing the obstruction to the delivery of possession of a house situated in Bangalore City. An application was filed under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present appellant in the capacity of a purchaser of the said property in Court sale. Respondent No. 1 obstructed the delivery proceedings on the ground that he had purchased the said property from the original owner thereof and had also discharged the prior usufructuary mortgage of the said property in favour of one Adiramaiah Setty.He also got possession of the said property and was subrogated to his rights. Respondents 2 and 3 are the tenants of the said property under the first respondent. The respondents' contentions were upheld by the trial Court. In appeal by the present appellant, the learned Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, while dismissing the appeal ordered that he is entitled to resist the delivery proceedings till the amou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-31-1960
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
Decided on : Jul-22-1960
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
Decided on : Sep-10-1960
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!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-27-1960
Reported in : AIR1963Mys81; ILR1960KAR766
M. Sadasivayya, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order dated 14-11-1959 by the Election Tribunal, Raichur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in Election Petition No. 258 of 1957 on its file. Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa as a candidate on behalf of the Lok Sevak Sangha and Shankaragouda Basan Gouda as a candidate on behalf of the Congress Party, contested for a seat in the Mysore Legislative Assembly from the Yelburga Constituency of Raichur District, Mysore State, in the last general election of 1957. Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa having polled only 14,500 votes, Shankargouda Basan Gouda was declared duly elected, he having polled 20,541 votes.Thereupon, Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa filed an election petition under Section 80 of the Act alleging that because of the various corrupt practices committed by the respondent, his agent and persons interested in the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-14-1960
Reported in : 1960CriLJ1472
ORDERA. Narayana Pai, J.1. The appellants, Ningappa Palappa Hadli and Gudigeppa Balappa Hadli, were respectively the first 2nd the second accused in Sessions Case No. 48 of 1957 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwar. They and 7 others were tried together upon the charge that on or about the 18th day of July 1957 at Huilgol village they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, with the common object of Committing the murders of Sivappa Gangappanavar and Ningappa Gangappanavar and that, in prosecution of the said common object, some of them did intentionally cause the deaths of the said Sivappa Gangappanavar and Ningappa Gangappanavar and thereby all of them committed offences punishable Under Section 148 and Under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.Accused Nos. 3 to 9 were acquitted. The appellants were found to be guilty only of causing grievous hurt to Sivappa and Ningappa punishable Under Section 325 of the Penal C...
Tag this Judgment!