Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant33; AIR1950Mys33
Medapa, C.J. and Mallappa, J.1. The appellants in these two regular appeals are defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No. 60 of 1944 on the file of the District Judge, Civil & Military Station, Bangalore, as well as in O.S. No. 56 of 1942-43 on the file of the District Judge, Bangalore City, re-numbered as O.S. No. 60 (A) after its transfer to the District Court, Civil & Military Station, Bangalore. These two suits were disposed of by a common judgment and it is against this judgment of the District Judge, Civil & Military Station decreeing the two suits as prayed for that the appellants have come up in appeal. The appeals were first heard by Sri Balakrishnaiya and Sri V. Kandaswami Pillai JJ but on a difference of opinion, they were referred to a Full Bench by Sri Balakrishnaiya J. and have come up, therefore, for decision before the Full Bench.2. The three plaintiffs in the two suits referred to above are sons of V. Ramalinga Mudaliar who died after disposing of the plaint schedule properties und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant1; [1956]26CompCas121(Kar)
ORDER1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2), Mysore Income tax Act. The assessee is a company registered under the Indian Company's Act which has its head office in Calcutta and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes. The manufacturing establishment is at Calcutta but the sales are effected all over India including Mysore the Company does not sell the goods directly in the market and has provided a special machinery for carrying on the business. It has depots in several towns or cities one of which is at Madras to cater to the demands of the surrounding area for portions of which a 'distributor' or 'customer' as he is called since 1941 is appointed. During the period between 1st August 1935 and 15th November 1944, the depot in Madras was shifted to Bangalore C and M Station. In the year relevant to the case there were 43 'customers' of the company in Mysore each of whom had to operate within a particular, defined 'territory'. These 'c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant13; AIR1950Mys13
Mallappa, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree in R.A. No. 105 of 47-48 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, confirming those of the II Munsiff, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 131 of 1946-47 on the file of this Court.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit against the defendant-appellant for recovery of the Rs. 513 due on a promissory note executed by the defendant on 3rd September 1997 in favour of the deceased husband of the plaintiff. The plaintiff relied on an endorsement on the promissory note dated 7th September 1940 for the payment made towards interest. The defendant is admittedly an agriculturist. The defendant is admittedly an agriculturist within the meaning of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act and he has pleaded discharge. This has not been believed by both the Courts and the suit is decreed as prayed for.3. The only point that was argued in this appeal is that the courts below erred in the view that the suit is not barred by limitati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant18; AIR1950Mys18
Mallappa, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision in R.A. 145 of 1947 48 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Bangalore reversing that of the second Munsiff, Bangalore in Execution No. 317 of 1946-47.2. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether Execution Case No. 317 of 1946/47 referred to above was rightly dismissed as barred by tim.e This execution case filed on 27th January 1947 more than 12 years after 27th November 1933 the date of the decree sought to be executed, and more than 3 years after the dismissal of previous Execution Case No. 802 of 1933-34 on 23rd November 1984, is clearly barred both under Section 48, Civil, P.C. as well as under Art. 182, Limitation Act unless it is construed to be continuation of the latter execution case.3. The short point for consideration is, therefore, whether Execution No. 317 of 1946-47 can be construed to be a continuation of Execution No. 802 of 1933-34. The latter case was dismissed on 23rd November 1934 as decre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant26; AIR1950Mys26
ORDER1. This is a revision petition against the order in Criminal Revision petition 74/48-49 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore, confirming the order of discharge passed by the City Magistrate in C.C. No. 1157 of 1948-49 on the file of his Court.2. The complaint is one of bigamy, an offence punishable under Section 494, Penal Code. The accused a Hindu by birth was, after con-version into Christianity married to the complainant a Christian by birth. Both of them were later on converted into Hinduism by Aryasamaj and he then married a Hindu girl. The Magistrate discharged the accused holding that his second marriage after he was converted into Hinduism does not amount to an offence and this view was upheld in revision by the Sessions Judge. It is against this order of the Sessions Judge that the complainant has filed this revision petitions.3. The offence punishable under Section 494, Penal Code is based on the law of England. According to 24 and 25 Vict. Order 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant6; AIR1950Mys6
Balakrishnaiya, J. 1. This appeal arises out of O.S.No. 632 of 1944-45 filed by respondent 1 in the Court of the Munsiff of Hassan. Respondent-plaintiff 1 and defendants 7 and 8 are the sons of one Lakshminaranappa. The suit property is ancestral to the plaintiff and defendants 7 and 8 and the suit is for possession of the suit property both on his own behalf and on behalf of defendants 7 and 8, with mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession. 2. It is common case that the property was acquired by Krishnappa, the grandfather of the plaintiff, who claims half of the same under the will of the grandfather and one sixth as the heir to his father. He claims two-third share and the remaining on-third is said to belong to defendants 7 and 8 together. His mother, Venkamma, who claimed the property under a gift deed from her father-in-law, Krishnappa, was in possession and enjoyment even during the life-time of Lakshminaranappa, her husband, and owing to defaul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant11; AIR1950Mys11
ORDER1. This is an application under Order 41, Rule 5, Civil P.C. The point for consideration is wether pending R.A. 64 of 49-50, the execution of the decree of the lower Court has to be stayed on appellants furnishing security.2. The lower Court has passed a decree for payment of Rs. 12,000 claimed to have been contributed by the plaintiffs towards their share of capital of a partnership concern for the dissolution of which the suit was filed and has passed also a preliminary decree for dissolution of partnership with a direction that accounts should be taken for ascertaining the income of the partnership concern. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that even if the plaintiffs have contributed Rs. 12,000 towards capital to the partnership concern there can be no decree for any amount at this stage, i.e. before accounts are taken. What is due to the plaintiffs or by them can only be ascertained after going through the accounts and in case there was a loss as contended by appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant9; AIR1950Mys9
Balakrishnaiya, J.1. The appellant filed a suit for the recovery of 'Wara' produce or its value for the agricultural year 1946-47. it is alleged that the defendants were cultivating the schedule laud for about five years prior to suit and failed to deliver the landlord's share of the produce due in January 1947. The defendants denied the lease during the suit year and pleaded that one Gangamma, in pursuance of a decree against the plaintiff and his brother, brought the schedule property to sale and purchased the same; she also took possession of the property through Court; they plead that they have delivered the produce to the vendee of Gangamma and the liability is thus discharged.2. The original lease of the suit land by the plaintiff has been established. The lease appears to be oral continuing from year to year and the agricultural year begins on 1st April of every year and ends on 31st March of the subsequent year. The courts below have found on facts that Gangamma who obtained a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant57; AIR1950Mys57
Balakrishnaiya, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs as executors of a will who applied to the Court of the District Judge, Bangalore, for grant of Letters of Administration with an authenticated copy of the will annexed in respect of the schedule assets belonging to deceased V. Ramalingam. The respondents are the wife and children of the testator. The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 4 of 1943 in the Court of the District Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore. The suit was decreed granting probate in respect of the deceased's properties within the jurisdiction of that Court. Against that judgment R.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1944 were filed by the respondents, the wife and children of the deceased in the Court of the Hon'ble the British Resident in Mysore at Bangalore and the said appeals were dismissed on 5th July 1944. Against the appellate judgment, the respondents preferred an appeal to the Privy Council which was pending on the date of the judgment of the lower court. The executors also filed O.P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant30; AIR1950Mys30
ORDER1. The question for decision in these two cases is whether the convictions of the petitioners for contravention of Art. 17, Food Acquisition (Harvest) Order of 1948 by removing certain quantities of paddy on the night of 11th December 1948 without permits are correct. In ore case 10 bags of paddy were found in a double bullock cart belonging to accused 1 on the way from his village Gutte to another village Dandinadibba, at a river bed. In the other case, there were 51 bags of paddy loaded or about to be loaded in a lorry at or near the same place for the purpose of being taken to a village in another Taluk viz, Koratagere. The prosecution evidence about this and the seizure of the paddy in the course of transit outside the village is not challenged and admittedly the petitioner had no permits with them for removal of the paddy. They contended, there was no need for a permit as the paddy was intended to be taken the Government depot for disposal and even otherwise they are not culp...
Tag this Judgment!