Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1953Kant6; AIR1953Mys6
Ramaiya, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for possession of a house conveyed by them under a registered sale deed to theplaintiff. Out of the consideration of Rs. 800/-mentioned in the sale deed Rs. 400/- was paid onthe date of the document. Towardsthe balance of Rs. 400/- Rs. 185/-was payable at the time of registration and Rs.215/- had to be paid to one Nanjundaradhya aprior mortgagee of the property. Exhibit E is thesale deed dated 19/2/1944 and Exhibit E (1) isthe consideration receipt for payment of Rs.400/- executed by the defendants on the sameday.Possession of the property was not delivered to the plaintiff and one of the terms of the sale deed is that the defendants could remain in possession of the same for 3 months within which they had to construct a new residence. The defendants while admitting the execution of the sale deed and the consideration receipt pleaded that the sale was cancelled by means of the document, Exhibit I, dated 8/5/1944 wherein the pl...
Tag this Judgment!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 : AIR1950Kant8; AIR1950Mys8
Balakrishnaiya, J. 1. The appellant is the petitioner who filed Misc. case No. 51 of 47-48 in the Court of the Munsiff, Bangalore, under the Mysore Guardian and Wards Act for the appointment of himself as the guardian of the person of his minor daughter, Lingamma, and for the custody of the minor. Respondent 1 is the mother's sister of the minor and respondent 2 is the husband of respondent 1. The trial Court has refused to grant either of the prayers of the petitioner and hence this appeal. 2. One of the allegations in the petition is that in view of the close relationship existing between the parties, the petitioner was sending the minor Lingamma to live with the respondents for sometime off and on and bring her back after a few days, that about six months ago, the respondents took the child with the consent of the petitioner to keep her with them for a few days, but have refused to send the child back, the other allegation is that the respondents are arranging to give away the child...
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 : AIR1950Kant23; AIR1950Mys23
ORDER1. These two cases may be conveniently disposed of by the same order as the points involved for consideration in both are practically identical. The order sought to be revised in both cases in one passed in a suit dismissing two applications one of which, I.A. No. IV was filed by a son of the plaintiff and the other I.A. No. VIII by the sons of the defendants for being added as parties in the suit. The original plaintiff now being dead the petitioner in I.A. No. IV has been impleaded s one of his legal representatives and in view of his being thus made a party in the case Sri Somasekhara Rao, the learned counsel, represents on his behalf that there is no need to consider the correctness of the order so far as he is concerned. The defendants and their sons have applied separately in these two cases for the order being set aside with respect to I.A. No. VIII.2. The pleadings in the case are lengthy, the properties involved are of considerable value and the contest between the partie...
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 : AIR1950Kant55; AIR1950Mys55
ORDER1. The petitioners in these four petitions are the respondents in R.A. Nos. 104 and 109 of 1947-48. Two civil petitions are filed under Section 151 and Order 41, Rule 21, Civil P.C., praying that the Court may be pleased to set aside the ex parte decree passed respectively in the appeals. Two other petitions C.Ps. Nos. 50 and 49 of 49-50 relate respectively to the above appeals and are filed under Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of the C.P.C., for review of the judgment passed in the above appeals.2. Before discussing the merits of these petitions it is necessary to set out in brief the history of these cases. Before these appeals were posted for hearing, the parties filed an application in or about March 1948 to advance the hearing of the appeals for an early disposal of the same. The appeals were subsequently heard by a Bench consisting of the then Chief Justice and when the arguments were almost concluded, the parties took time with a view to effect a compromise. Later, they w...
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!