Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: karnataka prohibition act 1961 section 112 articles seized Sorted by: old Page 1 of about 25,616 results (1.347 seconds)

Birendra Kishore Manikya Vs. Akram Ali

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1912)ILR39Cal439

..... sanad about rent being payable either for the watery portion or the area of the four banks of the tank.7. the case is clearly not one within the ancient-prohibition which, we are told, was in force in the early days of last century, that a rent-free grant was not valid against the heir or purchaser of the grantor ..... the learned vakils engaged. in my opinion, the district judge has fallen into error in dismissing the suit on this ground. article 130 of the first schedule of the limitation act, 1908, provides a period of twelve years within which a suit must be brought for the resumption or assessment of rent-free land, and the period begins to run when ..... suit was instituted within 12 years from the 25th may 1896, the date of the final publication of the record-of-rights prepared under chapter x of the bengal tenancy act.5. the duty of zamindars to maintain the tanks on their zamindari was plainly pronounced by their lordships of the privy council in the madras railway company v. the zemindar .....

Roberts Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

..... of which has been suspended, to be set aside and increased upon revocation of probation; (2) if construed to grant such power, the act to that extent violates the prohibition against double jeopardy contained in the fifth amendment. we do not reach this second question. if the authority exists in federal courts to suspend ..... or to increase a sentence fixed by a valid judgment, it must be derived from the probation act. the government page 320 u. s. ..... the power to suspend imposition had been eliminated and only the power to suspend execution remained. [ footnote 6 ] between 1917 and 1925, when the present act was passed and approved by the president, the several congressional committees interested in probation legislation considered numerous bills. some provided only for suspension of imposition, some only .....

Lakshmamma and ors. Vs. M. Jayaram

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1952Kant114; AIR1952Mys114

..... document in token of its execution is admitted by a person to be his, there arises a presumption that he must have executed tha document. section 114 of the evidence act states:'the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and ..... as to throw the burden on the plaintiff. it is no doubt true that emphasis was laid in that case on the presumption under section 18 of the negotiable instruments act that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration only until the contrary is proved. but it must be remembered that the issue framed in the case threw the .....

S. Nanjundasetty Vs. Silpi Venkatachar and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1953Kant122; AIR1953Mys122

..... no rights at all. the sale implies that the rights of the mortgagor are acquired by the purchaser and these include the equity of redemption.2(b). there is no prohibition for a mortgagee being the purchaser of the property mortgaged to him see -- 'nimma subba rao v. shame gowda', 10 mys lj 478 (a) and the effect of the purchase ..... to bring about a merger of rights as mortgagee with those of purchaser except in relation to a puisne mortgagee under section 101, transfer of property act. as stated in mulla's transfer of property act at page 559 'when the mortgagee purchases the equity of redemption and acquires ownership he may keep the mortgage alive for his own defence as against .....

R. Muninarayana Reddy and ors. Vs. C.P. Chinnaswamy Gownder

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1952Kant120; AIR1952Mys120

..... not a term of the contract and evidence to prove that the vendee was aware of the defect was held to be not inadmissible under section 92 of the evidence act.5. since the letter is admissible and proved, the respondent is bound by his undertaking to pay the loan. he is not therefore entitled to be reimbursed for the payment ..... letter not being registered cannot alter or modify the rights of parties under the registered sale deed. the argument would be correct if sections 91 and 92 of the evidence act can be relied upon for this. it is not by means of oral evidence that the terms of the sale deed are sought to be varied but on the strength ..... granted a decree. his view seems to be that though the letter is genuine it cannot affect the obligation of the vendors under section 55 of the transfer of property act as there is no provision in the sale deed to exempt the vendors from liability for discharge of prior encumbrances.3. in my opinion, the reasoning of the learned judge .....

Doddarangappa Vs. Kenchegowda and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1953Kant111; AIR1953Mys111; (1954)32MysLJ111

1. The property in dispute in this appeal originally belonged to Kenchegowda who, it is in evidence, died early in the year 1900 or in the early part of 1901. He left a widow by name Chikkamma and according to the case of the plaintiff, Mallegowda, father of Defendant 4 Karigowda is their adopted son, Karigowda hypothecated the property on 10-8-1927 to the plaintiff and the plaintiff obtained a decree against him and purchased the property in execution of that decree. The husband of the second defendant claimed to be the reversioner of Chikkamma and obtained a decree against Defendant 4 in O. S. No. 224 of 1935-36 on the file of the Munsiff, Madhugiri. The plaintiff-appellant has filed the suit now in appeal for a declaration of his title to the plaint schedule property and for possession of the same. Second defendant contends that Mallegowda, father of Defendant 4, was not the adopted son of Kenchegowda and Chikkamma and that after the death of Chikkamma, her husband became entitled t...

Gullegar Setty Vs. the State of Mysore

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1953Kant31; AIR1953Mys31; ILR1953KAR298

..... ' air 1952 sau 35. in that case the accused was found in bhavanagar in a drunken condition. he was charged with an offence under section 66(b), bombay prohibition act, of having consumed an intoxicant without a permit. there was no evidence on record as to where the accused had actually taken the intoxicant. the learned sessions judge found ..... in the latter case the burden of proving where the liquor was consumed is entirely on the prosecution. 3. i am unable to accept that contention. section 5, prohibition act, applies no doubt to cases where, irrespective of the place of drinking, the accused is found intoxicated either in a public place or in a private place within a ..... , learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised a bather interesting question and that is that the case of his client does not fall under section 4(1) (j), prohibition act, which refers to consuming liquor or any intoxicating drug within a 'dry' area. he urges that in a case like the present, it is not enough for the .....

S. Ramanna and ors. Vs. Abbas Hussain

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1954Kant133; AIR1954Mys133

..... judge, the ground relied on then being that the sale of the house in bhadravati which was in execution of a decree for arrears of assessment was not an act of insolvency and did not afford a ground to the creditor for making the application. though the appellant's application was made so far back as in august 1943, ..... he, however, came to the conclusion that the respondent owned sufficient properties and was in a position to discharge his debts and therefore under section 25 of the insolvency act the court would be justified in dismissing the application for insolvency. this particular ground, viz. that the respondent was able to pay off his debts was never taken in ..... this second appeal. he urges that under section 75(1) of the mysore insolvency act xi of 1925 which governs this case, only certain orders passed under the act are subject to second appeal and that the present order, which falls under section 25 of the act, is not liable to be appealed against to the high court. in support of .....

Bommarasegowda Vs. B.T. Gundappa

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1954Kant121; AIR1954Mys121

..... iyer to mean jurisdiction or right to try and determine causes: 'the right to take notice of and determine a cause'. the suit being one filed under the agriculturists' relief act, and section 23 being mandatory in requiring it to be tried as an original suit cannot be said to be cognizable in the court of small causes as it has ..... /- and rs. 400/- court fee was to be paid separately on each or on the total amount. it was held that by virtue of section 17 of the court-fees act, court-fee was to be separately assessed on each item and on this basis payment at the lower rate prescribed for rs. 400/- was sufficient, since'the test in such ..... original suit. we are unable to agree with the view expressed in -- '31 mys lj 147 (a)' that a case such as this is governed by art. ha), court-fees act. 4. the order of the lower court directing payment at the rate prescribed for an original suit is correct. the petition is dismissed. no costs. 5. petition dismissed.

K. Dhondoji Rao Vs. Dominion of India

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1957Kant94; AIR1957Mys94

..... required under section 75 of the railway act was made, the commodity carried admittedly falling under excepted article.under section 80, c. p. c., as amended in 1948, in the case of a suit ..... c, and that the suit, in consequence, is riot maintainable.the other objections raised by them are that the notices issued under section 77 of the railway act are not in conformity with the provisions thereof and that otherwise the railway administration is not liable for loss of articles entrusted to be carried, as no special declaration ..... it becomes unnecessary to deal with the other question whether or not the notice under section 77 of the railway act is defective or to consider the competency or otherwise of the claim contravening section 75 of the railway act.5. in the result, the appeal is dismissed, parties bearing their own costs in this court.6. appeal .....