Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: karnataka Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 79 results (0.007 seconds)

Sep 17 2004 (HC)

State of Karnataka Vs. K.P. Thimmappa Gowda

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-17-2004

Reported in : 2004CriLJ4785; ILR2004KAR4471

..... side. consent supposes three things - a physical power, a mental power and a free and serious use of them. hence it is that if consent be obtained by intimidation, force, mediated imposition, circumvention, surprise or undue influence, it is to be treated as a delusion, and not as a deliberate and free act of the mind'.18. while considering the question .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 2004 (HC)

Chandu Vs. State by Kunchawaram Police Station

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-05-2004

Reported in : 2004CriLJ4062; 2004(5)KarLJ105

..... asking back their money. in this regard, a panchayat came to be held in the said tanda and p.w. 9-chandru who is dalapati of that tanda was the mediator. it is also come on record, many purchasers agreed to take back portion of the sale consideration paid by them and accept the plot offered by the family members of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 2004 (HC)

G. Govindappa by His Lrs. Vs. Tayamma by Her Lrs.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-28-2004

Reported in : ILR2004KAR2583; 2004(7)KarLJ25

sreedhar rao, j. 1. this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.9.99 in ra no. 17/85 on the file of the addl. district judge, raichur, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 31.8.85 in o.s.no. 171/81 on the file of the civil judge, raichur. for convenient discussion the appellant would be called plaintiffs and the respondents as defendants. 2. the appellants are the lrs of the deceased plaintiff, who filed a suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property and for possession. according to plaintiff his grand father one narasappa is the propositus. the suit properties are ancestral properties. propositus died leaving behind two sons by name basanna and balayya. plaintiff is the son of basanna. the first defendant is the wife of balayya and the second defendant is the daughter of balayya. basanna died in the year 1975. balayya died in the year 1976. plaintiff contends that in the year 1939 as per ex p1 balayya released his share in the suit property in favour of basanna. balayya had no residence and he was financially not well placed, therefore plaintiff's father basanna permitted balayya to live in the suit house as licensee. when the defendants took hostile attitude, the suit came to be filed for declaration of title and possession. 3. the defendants denied the plaintiff's title. it is said that balayya constructed the suit house investing his earnings. the property was mutated in the municipal records in the year 1963 in favour of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2004 (HC)

Guddappa Kariyappa (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Fakirappa Durgappa Ilekar an ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-18-2004

Reported in : 2004(4)KarLJ441

ordern.k. patil, j.1. the petitioners, questioning the correctness of the order passed by the land tribunal, hirekerur dated 13th april, 1989 in case no. klr/sk/vlr/24/hirekerur, had filed an appeal on the file of the additional land reforms appellate authority, haveri in lra no. 116 of 1989. when the matter was pending adjudication, in view of the amendment of the karnataka land reforms act, the constitution of the appellate authority was abolished and the parties were permitted to file a civil petition. accordingly, the petitioners filed civil petition no. 7802 of 1991 and the same is converted into the instant writ petition.2. the petitioners claiming to be tenants had filed form 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of sy. no. 36/1 measuring 01 acre 08 guntas and the application filed by the petitioners had come up for consideration before the land tribunal on 7th february, 1977 and the land tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners. assailing the said order, the state had preferred a writ petition in no. 2151 of 1981 before this court. this court, after hearing, allowed the writ petition filed by the state and set aside the order passed by the land tribunal dated 7th february, 1977 and remanded the matter for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. after remand, the matter was taken up for consideration by the land tribunal afresh. after consideration of the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, the tribunal has rejected the claim .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 2004 (HC)

The Chairman, Blde Association Vs. Kasturibai and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-12-2004

Reported in : 2004(7)KarLJ100

ram mohan reddy, j.1. m.f.a. no. 356 of 2003; m.f.a. crob no. 32 of 2003 in m.f.a. no. 356 of 2003; m.f.a. no. 357 of 2003; m.f.a. crob no. 27 of 2003 in m.f.a. no. 357 of 2003; m.f.a. no. 358 of 2003; m.f.a. crob no. 26 of 2003 in m.f.a. no. 358 of 2003 are filed by the beneficiary and cross-objections by the landowners and m.f.a. nos. 460 to 462 of 2003 are by the special land acquisition officer (for short, 'lao') calling in question the legality and validity of the common judgment and award dated 25-9-2002 passed in l.a.c. nos. 145 of 1991; 144 of 1991 and 146 of 1991 on the file of the court of the additional civil judge (senior division), bijapur (for short, the 'civil court').2. 19 acres 18 guntass in r.s. no. 138; 30 acres 32 guntass in r.s. no. 139 and 19 acres 30 guntas in r.s. no. 143 of bhutnal village, bijapur taluk (for short, the 'acquired lands') were acquired by the state in exercise of its 'eminent domain' power under the land acquisition act, 1894 (for short, 'act') to wit, for purpose of construction of blde hospital, college and staff quarters, by issuance of preliminary notification, under section 4(1) of the act, published in the karnataka gazette, dated 25-2-1988. the lao, after conducting award enquiry passed an award dated 31-3-1990 determining the market value at rs. 10,000/- per acre on the basis of sale statistics secured from the office of the sub-registrar, concerned. the landowners, being dissatisfied with the said award sought for reference of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 16 2004 (HC)

B. Bennari Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Secretary to Revenue Departme ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-16-2004

Reported in : ILR2004KAR4353

ordern. kumar, j.1. in w.p. no. 24204/2000 an application is filed by the impleading applicants who are the purchasers of the land in question. as they are the persons who are likely to be affected by any orders passed by this court in the writ petition and in fact their sale deed is sought to be quashed, i.a.i/04 is allowed. petitioner to amend the cause title.2. the brief facts giving raise to the writ petitions are as hereunder :-3. the subject matter of dispute is land bearing sy. no. 108/3 situated at mysore village, mysore taluk, measuring 3 acres 10 guntas. in respect of this land two applications were filed in form no. vii for grant of occupancy rights under section 48a of the karnataka land reforms act (hereinafter for short, called as 'the act'). one application was filed by one perumal and the said case was numbered as lrf no. 2977/74-75. yet another application is filed by k.m. jayaram mudaliar. both the applications were clubbed. perumal did not press his application and, therefore, his application came to be rejected. whereas, jayaram mudaliar's claim was accepted by the tribunal and occupancy rights were granted in his favour by an order dated 7.11.1978. in the said form no. 7, one smt. ponnamma, w/o late ponnuswamy was shown as the owner of the land. smt. ponnumal challenged the said order of the land tribunal before this court by filing a writ petition in w.p. no. 19565/83. in fact before the order came to be passed by the land tribunal, jayaram mudaliar died .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2004 (HC)

Basana Gouda Vs. the Land Tribunal, by Its Secretary and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : May-11-2004

Reported in : ILR2004KAR2413

r.v. raveendran, j.1. the appellant's family consists of himself, his wife, one son and one daughter. according to appellant, there was an oral partition between himself and his minor son [sharanappa) on 13-3-1972 and subsequently that was reduced into writing in the form of a memorandum of partition [palupatti]. according to appellant, under the said petition his minor son had been allotted sy.no.86 [7 acre 21 guntas ], 156 (6 acre 15 guntas ], 65 (6 guntas ], 66/1 [2 acres 17 guntas ], 290/a [34 guntas ], 293/a (1 acre 11 guntas ] and 294/b [18 guntas ] in all 19 acres 02 guntas; and the appellant held the remaining land viz., sy.nos.69/3 [3 acres 12 guntas ], 74/2 [6 acres 20 guntas ], 85 [10 acres 5 guntas ], 334 [24 guntas ], 335 [34 guntas ], 338 [5 acres 6 guntas ] and 40 [13 acres] in all 39 acres 21 guntas.2. the appellant filed a declaration under section 66 of the karnataka land reforms act, 1961 (for short, 'the act') in regard to the lands held by him. in the said declaration, he disclosed the total extent of lands held by him and also by his family members. according to appellant, the land which had fallen to the share of his minor son sharanappa under the partition dated 13-3-1972 had to be excluded to determine whether he (the appellant) holds any excess land or not.3. the land tribunal, raichur by order dated 4-10-1981 held that the appellant was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit. appellant challenge the said order in wp no 1664 of 1982. this court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 17 2004 (HC)

Sri Parushuram Nemani Kuduchakar and ors. Vs. Smt. Shantabai Ramachand ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-17-2004

Reported in : ILR2004KAR3355; 2004(6)KarLJ275

n. kumar, j.1. the bench consisting of my esteemed learned brothers justice tirath singh thakur and justice k. sreedhar rao, upon hearing the regular first appeal, rfa no. 446/1993, and having differed in their opinion on a point of law, have stated the point of law on which they differ, and in terms of section 98(2) of the code of civil procedure, the appeal is placed before me for hearing on the points of law so stated only, by an order of the hon'ble chief justice.2. though my learned brothers in the course of their judgment have set out the facts of the case, in order to appreciate the case in a proper perspective and to give my opinion on the point of law stated, it is necessary to advert to the pleadings of the parties in the suit. for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks to in the original suit.3. the plaintiffs contend that the propositus sri balaram kuduchakar died in the year 1930 leaving behind four sons, out of whom two sons expired in their young age and only two sons namely sri namani and sri ramachandra survived. sri namani died in the year 1981 leaving behind two sons and three daughters namely sri parasharam, sri subash, sri yallappa, smt. maya, smt. indu and sri chanda. sri yallappa one of the sons of sri namani died in the year 1990 leaving behind his wife smt. maiutai, defendant no. 3 in the suit and one minor son sri nemani, defendant no. 4. shri. ramachandra died in the year 1987 leaving behind his wife, sons sri mohan, sri .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2004 (HC)

Basanagouda Vs. the Land Tribunal and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : May-11-2004

Reported in : 2004(4)KarLJ193

r.v. raveendran, j.1. the appellant's family consists of himself, his wife, one son and one daughter. according to appellant, there was an oral partition between himself and his minor son [ sharanappa ] on 13-3-1972 and subsequently that was reduced into writing in the form of a memorandum of partition [palupatti]. according to appellant, under the said petition his minor son had been allotted sy. nos. 86 [7 acres 21 guntas ], 156 [6 acres 15 guntas], 65 [6 guntas], 66/1 [2 acres 17 guntas], 290/a [34 guntas], 293/a [1 acre 11 guntas] and 294/b [18 guntas] in all 19 acres 02 guntas; and the appellant held the remaining land viz., sy. nos. 69/3 [3 acres 12 guntas], 74/2 [6 acres 20 guntas], 85 [10 acres 5 guntas], 334 [24 guntas], 335 [34 guntas], 338 [5 acres 6 guntas] and 40 [13 acres] in all 39 acres 21 guntas.2. the appellant filed a declaration under section 66 of the karnataka land reforms act, 1961 [for short, 'the act'] in regard to the lands held by him. in the said declaration, he disclosed the total extent of lands held by him and also by his family members. according to appellant, the land which had fallen to the share of his minor son sharanappa under the partition dated 13-3-1972 had to be excluded to determine whether he (the appellant) holds any excess land or not.3. the land tribunal, raichur by order dated 4-10-1981 held that the appellant was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit. appellant challenge the said order in w.p. no. 1664 of 1982. this court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 2004 (HC)

Byrappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-05-2004

Reported in : ILR2004KAR1950; 2004(2)KarLJ515

ordern. kumar, j.1. as these two writ petitions are preferred challenging the very same award and the notification under sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the land acquisition act, they are taken up for consideration together, heard and disposed of by this common order.2. the petitioner in w.p. no. 12348 of 2000 is one sri byrappa, s/o. late doddakempaiah. whereas, the petitioner in w.p. no. 36585 of 2001, smt. kempamma is the wife of muniyappa and daughter of late doddakempaiah. in other words, the petitioners are brother and sister.3. land bearing sy. no. 218/1 measuring 2 acres 17 guntas was notified for acquisition by the first respondent under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act on 9-5-1988. the said lands were notified in the name of munipujamma, the original owner of the said property. doddakempaiah along with his daughter smt. kempamma purchased the aforesaid lands under a registered sale deed dated 14-5-1970. as the mutation entries had not been effected in their names, a notification was issued in the name of the previous vendor. after the final notification, objections were filed on 14-2-1989 by the petitioners herein bringing to the notice of the authorities that they are the owners of the property and the notification is not issued in their names and also opposing the acquisition on several grounds. overruling the aforesaid objections an award came to be passed on 31-3-1989 in favour of the said munipujamma. after the passing of the award, notification under section .....

Tag this Judgment!


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