Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-29-1972
Reported in : AIR1972Kant321; AIR1972Mys321; (1972)2MysLJ20
Venkataramiah, J.1. The above appeals are filed against the orders passedon I. As. 10 and 11 in Execution No. 7/ 1966 on the file of the Civil Judge. Bangalore City, setting aside the sale of a house belonging to judgment debtor No. 2. The sale was held on 22-11-1966.2. In the said execution proceedings the decree-holder sought to execute a money decree passed in O. S. 79/62 on the file of the District Judge. Bangalore. Under the decree the judgment-debtors, K. Shamanna and Lakshmamma, were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount due under the decree. It may be mentioned here that the said decree was consent decree. Under the decree the defendants were permitted to pay the decretal amount in four equal instalments with a default clause stating that in the event of any two instalments being in default, the entire amount would become due. The judgment debtors did not pay the decretal amount in accordance with the decree. The decree-holder therefore sued out execution to realise th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-12-1972
Reported in : AIR1972Kant311; AIR1972Mys311; (1972)1MysLJ649
ORDER1. This petition under Section 115, Civil P. C. has been brought up before us by way of a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court. It is by a tenant and is directed against an order made by the Principal Munsiff, Gadag in Misc. Case 1 of 1970.2. The few relevant facts are as follows:-- The respondent herein, who is the owner of R. S. No, 332/2 in Huilgol Village, sued the petitioner herein, by an application filed before the Land Tribunal, constituted under the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for a declaration that the petitioner was not a tenant. The said petition has been filed on 24-12-1966 under Section 112 of the Act. Since the application of the respondent had been filed beyond the time specified under the proviso to Section 4 of the Act, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 1963, for condonation of delay involved in its presentation, was also filed. According to the proviso to Section 4 of the Act such an ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-21-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Kant197; AIR1973Mys197; (1973)1MysLJ16
V.S. Malimath, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs appeal under Order 41. Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order passed by the Vacation District Judge dated the 17th of May, 1972 on I. A. No. 1 in O. S. No. 13 of 1972. The appellants-plaintiffs instituted the suit on the 22nd of April. 1972 in the Court of Vacation District Judge, Dharwar for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit land, measuring an extent of 3 acres 37 guntas. On the same day. the appellants obtained an ex parte order of injunction in their favour. The respondent thereafter, filed his objections and the matter was finally heard by the Vacation District Judge himself. The learned Vacation District Judge passed an order on the 17th of May, 1972 and vacated the interim order of injunction in so far as it pertained to an extent of 2 acres 37 guntas. which extent of land was claimed by the respondent defendant to be in his possession. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-06-1972
Reported in : [1973]31STC445(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J. 1. In these writ petitions preferred under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Mysore Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Mysore Act 17 of 1969), hereinafter called the impugned Act. They have prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amounts collected by way Of sales tax on duty of excise, education cess and health cess, on sales of arrack effected by the State to the petitioners between 1st July, 1966, and 30th June, 1967. The impugned Act by amendment of serial No. 39 in the Second Schedule to the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Mysore Act 25 of 1957) (hereinafter called the Act) enhanced the rate of sales tax on 'country liquor other than toddy' from 'six and a half per cent.' to 'forty-five per cent.' with retrospective effect to operate from the first day of April, 1966. It further validated the excess collection of tax made by the State. 2. In order to appreciate the contentions ur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-31-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Kant162; AIR1973Mys162; (1972)2MysLJ460
Sadananda Swamy, J.1. One Harsha sustained injuries as a result of en accident caused by a motor car at about 10.35 p.m. on 10-2-1965. He filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, Bangalore, awarded Rs. 6,100/- as special damages and Rs. 10,000/- by way of general damages against the owner of the Car and the Insurance Company. The applicant has come up in appeal M. F. A. 56/170 contending that the amount of compensation awarded is inadequate. The owner of the Car and the Insurance Company have filed M. F. A. No. 235/1970 challenging the order of the Tribunal and in the alternative contending that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.2. The Tribunal held that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car that the applicant sustained injuries as a result of the accident and that the owner of the car and the Insurance Company are liable to p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-18-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Kant25; AIR1973Mys25
Venkataswami, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the LandAcquisition Act, and directed against an order made by the Second Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore, in O. P. No. 814 of 1966, dated 21-1-1969.2. The lands concerned in this appeal were acquired for the purposes of laving a railway line, by a notification dated 16-4-1964 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The lands comprised under this acquisition are as follows: (1) 1 acre and 31 cents classified as wet.1; (2) 9 cents classified as wet 3; (3) one acre and 19 cents of garden; and one cent of dry land. The respondent had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre for dry land, Rupees 10,000/- per acre in regard to both classes of wet land, Rs. 24,000/- per acre for coconut garden and Rs. 60,000/- per acre towards areca garden, which was a portion of wet-1 land. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded in regard to these lands at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-towards ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-15-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Kant213; AIR1973Mys213; (1973)1MysLJ247
1. Shri Harathi Adirajaiah has preferred this Miscellaneous First Appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in Misc. Case No 358 of 1966. Respondent No. 1. Smt. Savandamma, has preferred cross-objections involving the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. She filed a petition on 16-4-1966 under Section 110-A of the Act before the Tribunal and prayed that a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- be awarded on account of the death caused to her husband. K. C. Nagaraju, on 9-5-1965 as a result of an accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Vehicle MYD 1797 owned by the appellant. It is alleged in the application that the deceased was a P.W.D. Contractor aged about 28 years who was earning an income of about Rs. 300/- per month.It is not disputed that Nagaraju boarded the bus at Dobspet ...
Tag this Judgment!