Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1952Kant1; AIR1952Mys1; (1952)30MysLJ192
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. This appeal was admitted to consider only a question of limitation which, though not advanced in the pleadings or the Courts below, is said to arise from facts about which there is no dispute and to be a manifest bar to the suit. The suit was to set aside alienations by the father in favour of a stranger, the date of the sale being 17-8-1936 more than 3 years prior to suit but within 12 years therefrom. The trial Court granted a decree to Plaintiffs and the decree is confirmed in appeal. The contention on behalf of the Appellant who is the alienee is that the suit is barred by virtue of Article 44 of the Limitation Act as it prescribes a period of only 3 years from the date the ward attains majority for suits by wards to set aside transfers of property by the guardian. Sri Kanakasabhapathy argues that inasmuch as the sale deed in favour of the Appellant purports to be executed by the father not merely on his behalf but as guardian of the minor sons, who are now th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1951Kant111; AIR1951Mys111; (1952)30MysLJ20
1. The question before us at present in this second appeal is as to the amount of court-fee payable on the memo of appeal. The pltfs. filed a suit for redemption of a mortgage with possession evidenced by a deed of mortgage for Rs. 800. They claimed to do so as purchasers of the mortgaged properties from defts. 1 to 6. Deft. 7, who is the appellant before us, pleaded that the pltfs. were not entitled so to redeem as the sale in their favour was nominal & collusive & was not meant to convey any title at all & that he himself had subsequently purchased the properties from defts. 1 to 6 in pursuance of a prior agreement of sale of which the pltfs. had notice. He also pleaded that he had spent monies for re-building & improving the first item mortgaged which is a house, as it had fallen down, that he had also paid some taxes & that in any event he was entitled to receive these sums aggregating Rs. 3,506-8-0 before the pltfs. could redeem him. The pltfs. paid a court-fee of Rs. 80 on the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1957Kant45; AIR1957Mys45; (1957)35MysLJ89
Venkataramaiya, C.J. 1. This is a batch of petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the levy of sales tax on monies realised for execution of certain contracts called 'works contract' has been challenged. The petitioners are charged with liability for payment of the tax not on the total amount received by them but on the value of goods supplied by them for fulfilment of contracts entered into with others, The value has been fixed and the tax assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Mysore Sales Tax Act and the rules framed thereunder. The objections raised and arguments advanced being the same in all the petitions these may be conveniently disposed of by a single order.2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the articles used by them for carrying out the works undertaken by them are treated as goods sold by them and that the value of these is determined not by the actual cost paid for but by the application of a formula. It is true that consi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1956KAR286; [1957]8STC329(Kar)
Venkataramaiya, C.J.1. This is a batch of petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the levy of sales tax on moneys realised for execution of certain contracts called 'works contract' has been challenged. The petitioners are charged with liability for payment of the tax not on the total amount received by them but on the value of goods supplied by them for fulfilment of contracts entered into with others. The value has been fixed and the tax assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Mysore Sales Tax Act and the rules framed thereunder. The objections raised and arguments advanced being the same in all the petitions these may be conveniently disposed of by a single order. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the articles used by them for carrying out the works undertaken by them are treated as goods sold by them and that the value of these is determined not by the actual cost paid for but by the application of a formula. It is true that consi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1957CriLJ455
Venkataramaiya, C.J.1. In this application filed under Section 501-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, legality of the disposal of a petition previously filed under the same section by my learned predecessor is challenged on the ground, that he had no jurisdiction to deal with it sitting alone. The point raised is novel, even as the circumstances relating to it are unusual. The order is attacked by the learned Advocate-General as being one passed in exercise of power not vested by law in a Judge acting singly.2. The genesis of the case is that on a charge sheet presented by the Police certain persons were prosecuted for alleged commission of offences in Mysore. Some of the Accused invoked the interference of this Court by means of petitions filed under Sections 439 and 561 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings instituted against them before the Magistrate.The petitions were registered as Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 80 and 103 of 1954 and dealt with for some t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant81; AIR1955Mys81
Venkataramaiya, J.1. Two notifications dated 20th and 30th March1954 respectively and a Circular dated 11-5-1954issued by the Director of Public Instruction inMysore are attacked in this petition filed underArt. 226 of the Constitution of India as being unwarranted and unconstitutional. The notificationsprescribed the text books and copy books to be usedin all the Primary and Middle Schools of theState during the year 1954-55. Objection is takento the prescribing not of text books i.e., books tobe read and taught but of the Kannada CopyBooks described as. 'Adarsha Lipi Pusthaka'printed by Maruthi Book Depot, laying specialemphasis on the use of these by means of a'N. B.' in the notifications and enjoining Educa-tional Officers in the Circular to enforce the same.Of the two persons who have filed the petition,the first is a dealer in Kannada copy books, whoof course would be materially affected by hisbooks being excluded from use in schools duringthe year; the second petitioner is a Chr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant79; AIR1955Mys79
ORDER1. This case has been referred to a Division - Bench by the learned Judge before whom it was first posted for hearing as the point Involved for decision is said to be a novel one about which there Is no ruling of tills Court. The question raised is whether a stranger can be directed or rather compelled at the Instance of a party to & suit to allow a Commission appointed by the Court to enter upon his lands for purpose of inspection and preparation of an inventory as regards stumps of trees etc. On the application I. A. 23 filled by the plaintiff in a suit relating to partnership after passing of a preliminary decree a Commissioner was appointed to make a report about the quality & number of trees cut and removed some years ago by seeing the stumps. It appears that the petitioner sold the trees to the defendant in the suit under Ex. VIII or Ex. M and that the information sought for has a bearing on the final decree to be passed in the case. The petitioner offered obstruction to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1954Kant102; AIR1954Mys102
Medapa, C.J.1. It will be necessary for a proper consideration of the arguments advanced in the case to set out in some detail the facts and circumstances which have led up to, and relevant for the disposal of this petition.The petitioner and the respondents were duly nominated candidates for election to the Mysore State Legislative Assembly from the Tarikere Constituency at the general elections held in this State on 4-1-1952. Respondents 5 to 9 withdrew their candidature within the prescribed time and as a result only the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 contested the elections. In the elections the petitioner secured 8093 votes as against 8059, 6239, 1644 and 1152 votes obtained by respondents 1 to 4 respectively. The Returning Officer thereupon declared the petitioner as the successful candidate in the election and the said declaration was published in the Mysore Gazette on 11-2-1952 as per the provisions of Section 67, Representation of the People Act, 1951.The petitioner lodged ...
Tag this Judgment!