Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: karnataka Year: 2003 Page 2 of about 118 results (0.011 seconds)

Feb 20 2003 (HC)

Budavanat Subraya Palekar Vs. Babu Vajra Chandavarkar and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-20-2003

Reported in : AIR2004Kant105; ILR2004KAR4068

k. sreedhar rao, j. 1. the counsel for the appellant submits that the first respondent died on 11-11-2002 and the respondents 2 and 3 are his sons and they are already on record and they sufficiently represent the estate of the first respondent. therefore, no need to bring on record any other l. rs. 2. the second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the principal munsiff, sirsi in os no. 255/89 and confirmed in appeal by the civil judge, senior division, sirsi in ra' no. 8/95. the appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the sale deed obtained by the defendant/respondent dated 28-5-1959 is illegal and outcome of fraud. the plaintiff contends that the suit schedule landed property absolutely belongs to him and he was in government service. on account of his frequent transfer from place to place the defendant was made to stay in the suit property since 1956 and allowed him to manage the property as he was his sister's husband. the revenue records, however, continued to be in the name of the plaintiff. it is said that in the year 1986, the defendant tried to secure mutation of his name in the revenue records. the plaintiff, on coming to know about fraud and fabrication of records, challenged the orders of mutation before revenue appellate authorities and also filed the present suit seeking declaration that the document of sale is illegal and not binding, also sought for consequential relief of permanent injunction. in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 2003 (HC)

Neelakanth and anr. Vs. Siddalingayya and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-28-2003

Reported in : AIR2004Kant258

k. sreedhar rao, j.1. the appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in r.a. no. 91 /91 on the file of district judge, bijapur arising out of the judgment and decree passed in o.s. no. 109/90 on the file of principal civil judge, bijapur. the appellants are defendants 3 and 4 in the suit. the first respondent is the plaintiff. the respondents 2 and 3 are defendants 1 and 2. the plaintiff is the son of second defendant. the first defendant is the coparcener of the second defendant. the defendants 3 and 4 are purchasers of the suit lands from the first defendant under registered sale deed ex. p. 17 and p. 18. the plaintiff contends that the property under ex. d. 1 was sold by second defendant in favour of first defendant without his knowledge. the plaintiff had reposed full trust in second defendant. the second defendant took the plaintiff to tahsildar's office took his signature under the pretext as a witness to the document without informing the contents. the first defendant was totally dependent on the second defendant and had no capacity to pay huge consideration of a sum of rs. 36,000/- and odd towards the purchase of the suit land under ex. d.1. therefore, the sale deed executed by first defendant under ex. d.9 is only nominal and not acted upon. the plaintiff further claims that the grandfather of defendants 3 and 4 with full knowledge of voidable circumstances purchased the property in the name of minor/defendant no. 3 represented by his father as the guardian and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 30 2003 (HC)

Smt. Suguna Rajkumar Vs. R. Rajmal and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-30-2003

Reported in : ILR2005KAR1583

r.v. raveendran, j.1. the appellant herein purchased property bearing no. 63, charles cambell road, cox town, bangalore (measuring 52' 6'x 80')' under registered sale deed 24.5.1985 executed by g b subramanyam setty. she was registered as the khatedar of the said property in the records of the corporation of city of bangalore, vide katha transfer endorsement dated 3.8.1997.2. a sale deed was executed in favour of the first respondent 23.2.1988 by the city civil court, bangalore (in execution of a decree for specific performance passed in o.s.no. 494/1964 against b. lakshiminarayana setty) conveying the said property to him. on the basis of the said sale deed, the first respondent applied to the bangalore city corporation on 3.1.1989 for registering the katha in his name. as the katha was not transferred, for nearly six months, the first respondent filed wp no. 21427/1989 seeking a direction to the corporation to transfer the katha of the said property in his name. a learned single judge of this court by order dated 22.6.1990 allowed the said writ petition and directed the corporation to consider the application of the first respondent for transfer of katha within two months from the date of receipt of the said order. in pursuance of it, the corporation considered the request of the first respondent for transfer of katha and after hearing the counsel for first respondent and appellant and recording their statement, issued the following endorsement dated 22.12.1990:-'the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 2003 (HC)

Bharamavva and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-09-2003

Reported in : 2003(5)KarLJ120

ordern.k. patil, j.1. the petitioners assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 27-4-1977 passed by the 2nd respondent-land tribunal (annexure-c) insofar as grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in sy. no. 153/1-a of billahalli village in favour of sri basappa angadi, father of the respondents 3 and 4 have filed this writ petition.2. the case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of land bearing r.s. no. 153/1-a measuring an extent of 1 acre 28 guntas including 2 guntas of kharab land situated at billahalli village, kuppavara hobli, ranebennur taluk. the father of respondents 3 arid 4, one sri basappa angadi has filed form 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question, which had come up for consideration before the land tribunal on 27-4-1977. the land tribunal, after hearing, recording the evidence of late basappa angadi and considering the material available on record granted the occupancy rights in favour one basappa angadi. further, the case of the petitioners is that, without issuing any notice to the petitioners, the land tribunal has proceeded ex parte and passed the orders unilaterally. no opportunity as such, was given to the petitioners or conducted any enquiry as provided under the relevant provisions of the land reforms rules, 1974. further, they have stated that there is a delay in filing this writ petition because they came to know about the order of the tribunal only when respondents 3 and 4 made .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 2003 (HC)

Rayanagouda Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : May-06-2003

Reported in : 2003(4)KarLJ518

a.m. farooq, j.1. this is a writ appeal directed against the order passed by the learned single judge in rayanagouda v. the deputy commissioner, gadag district, gadag and ors., 2003(4) kar. l.j.450. the petitioners had filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 1-6-2001 passed by the deputy commissioner, gadag district, under which mutation entries were made in favour of respondents 2 to 5 on the basis of a compromise decree entered into between the parties in the year 1947. the learned single judge, on consideration of the entire materials on record came to the conclusion that admittedly, the parties are joint family members and that there is a compromise decree passed on 19-8-1947 and by virtue of the partition deed, the respondents 3 to 5 are entitled to be in possession of the properties now mutated which is under challenge.2. the contention of sri f.v. patil is that even though the parties are joint family members and that there is a compromise decree of the year 1947, still, the respondents who are parties to the suit having not taken possession of the properties are not entitled to take possession of the properties by merely getting their names mutated in the revenue records. we fully agree with the learned single judge to the fact that the parties who are joint family members, being in joint possession, can be put in possession at any stage and it will not be in the interest of justice to dispossess the petitioners who have been put into possession by virtue .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 2003 (HC)

Marishetty Vs. Land Tribunal and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-27-2003

Reported in : 2004(2)KarLJ600

ordern.k. patil, j.1. the petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 30-9-1981 in case nos. lrf 56, 55/74-75 passed by the land tribunal, nanjangud, insofar as 1 acre 6 guntas in sy. no. 228/3 of byalaru village, nanjangud taluq has filed this writ petition.2. the case of the petitioner is that, the land in sy. no. 228/3 of byalaru village in nanjangud tq., measuring 2 acres 12 guntas excluding 2 guntas of kharab originally-belonged to shettaiah, the father of the petitioner. the said land is the ancestral property. after the demise of the petitioner's father, the petitioner and his brother madashetty succeeded to the said property. his brother madashetty was dumb and was unmarried, continued to live with the petitioner till his death. the kathastood in the name of madashetty, after the demise of their father. the petitioner's brother madashetty mortgaged the said land in favour of chikkamma w/o. rangashetty in the year 1932. subsequently, simple mortgage was created in favour of devarajaiah by the petitioner and his sister sannamma during 1938. further, the case of the petitioner is that, subsequently, out of 2 acres 12 guntas, an extent of 1 acre 6 guntas was sold in favour of nagaiah, the 3rd respondent herein and the remaining extent of 1 acre 6 guntas continued to be the property of the petitioner and he is in possession, enjoyment and cultivation of the same as owner. to substantiate his case, he has relied on the rtc for the agricultural years .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 2003 (HC)

Namdev Vyankat Ghadge and anr. Vs. Chandrakant Ganpat Chadge and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-25-2003

Reported in : ILR2003KAR1794

shivaraj v. patil, j.1. this appeal is by the plaintiffs challenging the validity and the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 27th june, 1994 passed in second appeal no. 406 of 1994 by the high court of bombay affirming the concurrent findings of the trial court and that of the first appellate court. in order to appreciate the contentions urged before us, it has become necessary to state the facts to the extent necessary for deciding the questions that arise for consideration. the family pedigree of the parties is as set out below:bali------------------------------------------------------------------------------vyankat (died on 8.2.1978 anand rao died in 1930widow krishnabai(defendant no.2)died in april 1980 # allegedly adopted*dattaraya on 10.6.78----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | |(peti. no.1 (peti. no.2 (res. no.1 sarda leelavai bhagirithi(plaintiff (plaintiff (defendant (defendant (defendant (defendantno.1 no.2 no.1 no.3 no.4 no.5namdev laxman ganpat#daughter's son*dattatraya adoptedby krishnabai(defendant no.6)2. bali had two sons, namely vyankat and anand rao, anand rao died on 6.7.1930 in joint family. the defendant no.2 was the wife of anand rao. after death of anand rao, vyankat became absolute owner of the suit property. the share of anand rao in suit property merged and the defendant no.2 has only right of maintenance being a widow the joint family of plaintiffs and defendant no.1. plaintiffs .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 2003 (HC)

Veerabhadrappa and anr. Vs. Smt. Gangamma and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Apr-09-2003

Reported in : AIR2003Kant348; 2004(3)KarLJ13

rajendra prasad, j. 1. both these regular first appeals arise out of the common judgment. the parties and the subject-matter involved in both the appeals are common. common arguments have been advanced by both sides. hence, common judgment. 2. we have heard the arguments of both sides. in view of the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeals, the following points would arise for consideration : (i) whether the judgment and decree of the trial court impugned under these appeals is legal and valid (ii) whether there is any need for this court to interfere with the judgment of the trial court (iii) what judgment or decree 3. the parties, in the course of this judgment, are referred with respect to their ranking in the trial court, for the purpose of convenience. 4. smt. nalini venkatesh, learned counsel for plaintiffs, strenuously contended that the material on record clearly goes to show that the judgment and decree of the trial court impugned in r. f. a. no. 435/1991 is illegal and invalid so far as it relates to negativing the claim of the second plaintiff. the material on record clearly shows that the second plaintiff has successfully proved her title and possession in respect of 'b' schedule properties. the learned civil judge, on appreciation of the evidence on record, had arrived at a conclusion that the second plaintiff had succeeded to the estate of deceased smt. shivalingamma and in spite of the same, the learned judge had erred in holding that the second plaintiff is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 2003 (HC)

M.A. Raju Vs. Annaiah and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Apr-10-2003

Reported in : AIR2003Kant497

k. sreedhar rao, j.1. this second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the district judge, mandya in r. a. no. 50/94 arising out of the judgment and decree passed in o. s. no. 114/91 on the file of addl. civil judge, mandya. the appellant is the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. the suit came to be dismissed and the consequent appeal is also dismissed. aggrieved by the said judgment, the present second appeal is filed.2. according to the plaintiff's contention, he constituted a joint family along with the defendants 1 to 3. the joint family owned around 7 acres of wet land. the first defendant is the father. the second defendant is his mother and the third defendant is the elder brother. it is said that the father and elder brother of the plaintiff found that the property could be conveniently managed by the plaintiff. therefore, executed a power of attorney to manage the joint family properties. during the course of management of joint family properties, three lands came to be purchased. one land was, purchased in the name of the plaintiff. one land was purchased in the name of the third defendant and the suit land was purchased in the name of the second defendant under a registered sale deed for a consideration of rs. 12,000/-. the plaintiff contends that the family was owning sufficient large extent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 23 2003 (HC)

Sharanappa Deceased by His Lrs. and ors. Vs. Sumitrabai and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-23-2003

Reported in : ILR2004KAR3605

k. sreedhar rao, j.1. the first respondent and the subject matter in these appeals are different but the appellant is the same. the facts and the questions of law involved are similar. common evidence is let-in in both the cases. apart from the two appeals now under consideration, the appellant had filed rsa 206/97 and rsa 207/97. all these appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed in o.s. no. 21/87 and o.s. no. 59/86 on the file of munsiff kustagi.2. for convenient discussion, the respondents hereinafter called plaintiffs and the appellant as defendant.3. the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction, in alternative seek relief of possession of the suit property from the appellant/defendant. the plaintiffs claim to be the absolute owners of the suit property and allege that the defendant is illegally interfering with their possession and enjoyment. hence, the suit.4. the defendant sets up a counter claim in both the suits seek relief of specific performance on the strength of agreement of sale ex.d.1 executed by the plaintiff in each of the suit. the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs allowed the counter claim, directed execution of sale deed by receiving balance of consideration. the plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgments and decrees preferred ra 29/90 and ra 30/90 on the file of civil judge, senior division, koppal. the appeals were allowed. the judgment and decree for specific performance granted in favour of the first .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //