Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-21-1971
Reported in : AIR1971Kant308; AIR1971Mys308; (1971)1MysLJ317
ORDERM. Santhosh, J.1. The petitioner before this Court is defendant-1 in the trial Court and the plaintiff is respondent-1 in this Court. The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit schedule lands. The plaintiff applied for an order of temporary injunction in the trial Court. The trial Court did not grant its order of temporary injunction. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff, the learned Civil Judge, Raichur, granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. In this revision, the petitioner (defendant-1) challenges the said order passed by the learned Civil Judge.2. The plaintiff's case Is that the suit properties are owned by Sri Raghavendraswami Mutt and that he has been a tenant of the suit schedule properties for a number of years. He continued to be in possession of the lands even after March 1970 and had raised crops on the suit schedule lands. As defendant-1 began to int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-05-1971
Reported in : AIR1972Kant121; AIR1972Mys121; (1971)2MysLJ179
M. Sadanandaswamy, J. 1. Appellant is the plaintiff. The respondent is the defendant. The suit was filed for possession of lands, survey Nos. 150, 151 and 158 of Modalapur. Manvi Taluk and for consequential reliefs. The plaintiff's case was that she was dispossessed by defendant and her husband in the year 1954 and the revenue records were manipulated in their favour. The defendant pleaded that there was an agreement of sale dated 27-6-1951 between the plaintiff and the defendant, that the plaintiff had thereunder agreed to sell the suit properties and two other properties for a sum of Rs. 6,000/-. that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid to the plaintiff, that the defendant got possession of the properties in pursuance to the said agreement and continues in possession as owner. The defendant relies on Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act to defeat the claim of the plaintiff in the suit 2. The trial court framed the following issues:--(i) Whether the agreement of sale dated 27-6-1951...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-16-1971
Reported in : AIR1971Kant347; AIR1971Mys347; (1971)1MysLJ397
ORDERH.B. Datar, J.1. The short question that arises in this revision petition is as to whether a revision is maintainable before this court against the order of the Court below?2. The few facts which are relevant for purposes of deciding this question are these. The plaintiffs filed original suit No. 51/1 of 1959-60 in the court of the Subordinate Judge at Raichur, and the court declared the shares of the plaintiffs and passed a preliminary decree under Order 20 Rule 15 C. P. C. on 29-2-1964. As against the said judgment and decree, an appeal was filed before the District Judge at Raichur, being Civil Appeal No. 34/4 of 1955 and cross-objections were also filed by the respondents.The learned appellate Judge considered three points that he framed for decision and modified the order of the trial court by his judgment dated 21-7-1966. Thereafter, a commissioner was appointed and on the report of the commissioner being given, the question arose as to whether the plaintiffs have a right re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-19-1971
Reported in : AIR1971Kant284; AIR1971Mys284; (1971)1MysLJ465
ORDERH.B. Datar, J.1. The petitioner in this revision petition is the original plaintiff in O. S. No. 95 of 1969, on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum and has challenged the order passed by the learned Civil Judge dismissing the application, I. A. XIV filed for amendment of the plaint. By the application filed for the amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff was seeking to state that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, S. D. Belgaum, was without jurisdiction for the reason that 'Chougala' office is neither a Village Office, nor a hereditary office within the meaning of the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act and the Watan Act of 1874. The petitioner also sought for certain other amendments, which according to the petitioner, are necessary to decide the real points in controversy between the parties and to enable the court to grant the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff. 2. The defendant resisted the said application on several grounds. 3. The learned Civil Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-12-1971
Reported in : AIR1972Kant14; AIR1972Mys14; (1971)2MysLJ113
ORDERD.M. Chandrashekhar, J. 1. This Revision Petition under Section 50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act. 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is by a tenant against whom a decree for eviction was made by the Munsiff at Bellary and affirmed by the District Judge at Bellary. The petitioner and the respondents will hereinafter be referred to respectively as the tenant and the landlords. 2. The premises are occupied bythe tenant for his residence. Though the landlords sought for eviction of the tenant on three grounds, the decree for eviction has been only on the ground specified in Clause (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21, namely, the premises being reasonably and bona fide required by the landlords for their occupation. The landlords claimed that the premises were required to provide additional accommodation for their business of manufacturing ready-made garments. 3. Mr. P. G. C. Chengappa. learned counsel for the petitioner, urged the following contentions in this petition. (1)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-02-1971
Reported in : AIR1972Kant63; AIR1972Mys63; (1971)2MysLJ351
Chandrashekhar, J.1. Can a father maintain a petition for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the death of his son in an automobile accident, when the mother is alive? That is the question that arises for determination in this appeal.2. One Basavalingaiah died as a result of an automobile accident in Davangere City on 16-12-1965. He was survived by his mother and his father. On 10-2-1966 the father (appellant 1) made a petition under S, 110-A of the Act before the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) claiming compensation. More than a year later, i.e., on February, 1967, he made an application, I.A.IV, to implead the mother of the deceased as the second petitioner. Respondents 1 to 3 herein, namely, the owner of the motor vehicle involved in that accident, the Insurance Company (wherein that vehicle was insured) and the driver of that vehicle (who...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-25-1971
Reported in : AIR1972Kant76; AIR1972Mys76
Chandrashekhar, J.1. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the common question of law that arises for determination, is whether a person who had been running a saw mill before the Mysore Forest Rules, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) came into force should take a licence under the rules in order to continue to run such saw mill.2. In W. Ps. Nos. 6061 to 6066 of 1969; 859 872 to 882; 1316 to 1318; 1346 to 1376; 2523 to 2527; and 4993 of 1970, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the notices issued to them bv the Forest Authorities requiring them to obtain such licences. Those petitioners have also prayed for a mandamus directing the Forest Authorities not to compel them (the petitioners) to obtain such licences. In W. Ps. Nos. 1149 and 1241 of 1970, in addition to similar prayers, the petitioners have prayed for striking down Rules 163 and 164 of the Rules as being ultra vires of Section 50 of the Mysore Forest Act. 1963. (hereinafter referred to as t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-06-1971
Reported in : AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361
Venkataswami, J. 1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. 2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-16-1971
Reported in : AIR1972Kant247; AIR1972Mys247
ORDERM. Sadanandaswamy, J.1. The appellants are plaintiffs and the respondents are defendants. The suit was filed for a declaration that the sale deed dated 29-6-1959 executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant in respect of the plaint 'B' schedule properties is not binding on them beyond the lifetime of the second defendant. The B Schedule properties originally belonged to the joint family of Papaiah Setty, who died in the year 1937, The geneology is as follows:- GENEOLOGY J. Papaiah Setty. | ________________________________________________________________ | | 1st wife J. Seethamma (2nd wife.D. 2) | | _________________________________ _________________________________ | | | | | |J. Veeranna Setty J. Seetharama Setty J. Krishna J. Saraswa J. Swarna Vasantha-(died on 15-11-58) (died in 1942) (D-3) Mohan. Seethamma. laxmi. | |____________________ __________________________1. J. Satyanarayana 1. J. Sakuntalamma (wife D.4).2. J. Panduranga 2. J. Nalanikantha (D.5).3....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-15-1971
Reported in : AIR1973Kant154; AIR1973Mys154; (1973)1MysLJ20
ORDER1. The above two Civil Revision Petitions are filed against a common order passed in Misc. Cases Nos. 187 and 189 of 1067 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge. Bangalore, on the two applications filed by the respondent in each of the above petitions under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the setting aside of the ex parte decree that had been passed in Original Suit No. 274 of 1964 on the file of the said Court. By its order dated 6-12-1969 the Lower Court allowed both the applications setting aside the preliminary decree and final decree passed in the said suit. The said suit was originally filed in the Court of the District Judge, Bangalore in Original Suit No. 58 of 1949-50, on the basis of a registered mortgage deed executed by defendants 1 and 2 therein for a recovery of sum of Rs. 31,725/- which was due on the mortgage deed by way of principal and interest thereon. The petitioner in Misc. Case No. 187 of 1967 is one B. N. Leelabai and she had ...
Tag this Judgment!