Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Shamanna Setty vs B.L. Channegowda on 14 July, 2006

Devaraj vs Dayarathini on 16 March, 2020

For giving evidence, the Director did not come, but sent CW1 to the Court. Having observed that CW1 was not appointed as a commissioner, the trial court thought that it was not safe to rely upon the 43 evidence of CW1. No fault can be found with the decision of the trial court for this reason. Sri. S. Shaker Shetty relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Shamanna Setty Vs. B.L.Channegowda - (ILR 2006 Kar.
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr Mahadevappa S/O Nagappa Koti vs Smt Iravva W/O Maharudrappa Hosamani on 23 September, 2025

19. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in i) Combe v. Combe4, and ii) Shamanna Setty Vs. B.L.Channegowda5 and iii) Somaraddi and others Vs. Smt. Tayavva (since deceased by L.Rs)6 in order to contend that so long as the Trial Court had appointed the Tahasildar as Court Commissioner, it was impermissible for the ADLR to have conducted the survey and submit a report which could not have been accepted by the Trial Court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

Sri Revanna vs Sri M R Parameswara on 6 December, 2018

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his I.A.No.4 was allowed which was filed under 5 Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC and Taluka Surveyor was appointed as Court Commissioner. But the Taluka Surveyor has delegated his power to the Taluka Bhoomapaka or Surveyor which is impermissible. He submits that the Taluka Surveyor should not have delegated the work of inspecting the suit schedule property to the Taluka Bhoomapaka. He further submits that Taluka Surveyor is different from Surveyor, they are two different posts and has also produced an endorsement dated 03.07.2015 issued under RTI Act along with memo dated 21.08.2018 and submits that Taluka Surveyor is different from Bhoomapaka or Surveyor. Learned counsel relies upon the decision of this Court reported in ILR 2006 KAR 3588 (Shamanna Setty Vs. B.L.Channegowda) and contends that if a person is appointed as Court Commissioner he cannot delegate his function to any other person.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S G Pandit - Full Document

Geeta Bai vs Sahadat Ali on 22 April, 2025

In a case i.e. Shamanna Shetty (supra) on which the counsel for the appellants has relied upon, the Karnataka High Court had taken a report of Revenue Officer not appointed as Commissioner by the court, but some other officer carried out the inspection and submitted its report and as per the order of the court that report could not have been considered. The observation made by the Karnataka High Court in the said case is as under:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Dwivedi - Full Document

Ramanjinamma vs Venkatamma on 28 January, 2021

3. The second contention vehemently urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order whereby the Commissioner was appointed by the Court below did not 3 authorize delegation of Commission powers to some other persons and therefore, the report submitted by the delegate is bad vide deligatus non protest protestas deligare, does not come to his aid since it is not a Thumb Rule, especially when the Commission work has been accomplished by the delegate who is none other than a Junior Engineer and in the opinion of this Court, he has competence to do commission work; secondly, this Maxim lays down a general principle and therefore, not in the absence of proven prejudice; the reliance placed by the petitioners on Shamanna Setty Vs. B.L. Channegowda, ILR 2006 KAR 3588 does not come much to his aid since this aspect has not been discussed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - K S Dixit - Full Document

K Munirathnam Naidu vs J R Shankarappa on 25 June, 2013

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Commissioner warrant issued at Annexure 'F', Taluka Surveyor, Bangarpet, was appointed as a Commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining whether the decreetal property was demolished or not. He 3 submits that no notice was issued before visiting the spot and apart from that Commissioner warrant is not executed by Taluka Surveyor. He further submits that as per the decision reported in ILR 2006 KAR 3588 (SHAMANNA SETTY vs. B.L.CHANNEGOWDA), the Court Commissioner has no right to delegate the work to any other person and in spite of filing objection to the Commissioner's report, executing Court has issued delivery warrant by passing the impugned Order.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - K N Bhakthavatsala - Full Document
1