Kerala Court December 1956 Judgments
Rowther Abdur Rehman Vs. Mathevan Pillai Narayana Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ker45
Kumara Pillai, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption. Defendant 1 is the appellant. Plaintiff-respondent also has filed a memorandum of objections against the decree of the lower Court.2. The plaint properties originally belonged to one Narayan Sankaran and his brother Narayanan Krishnan. In 1096 they hypothecated these properties to one Krishnan Govindan, and in 1097, after the death of Narayanan Krishnan, Narayanan Sankaran mortgaged them to one Sankara Kurup Narayana Kurup. Ext. XXXVIII is a copy of the hypothecation bond of 1096, and Ext. VI is the mortgage deed of 1097. On the hypothecation bond an assignee of the same obtained a decree, copy of which is Ext. C, on 1-2-1100.To this decree the mortgagee under Ext. VI was not a party. Narayanan Sankaran, the surviving hypothecate, was defendant X in Ext. C. He too died after the decree, and on his death two persons, Narayanan Narayanan and Narayanan Farames-waran, were impleadcd in the execution proceedings in Ext, C ...
Tag this Judgment!Makkar Pillai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-1956
Reported in: [1957]32ITR161(Ker)
VARADARAJA AYYANGAR, J. - These are references made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, under clauses (2) and (1) respectively of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act. They arise out of the assessments to income-tax of the same individual, M. K. Makkar Pillai, Alwaye, for the assessment years 1123 and 1124 M. E. As the question referred is more or less the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this single order.2. The assessee by his first wife, deceased, had 8 children who were all adults. By second wife he had 3 daughters who are all minors. In October, 1941, he floated a private limited company to take over his lucrative business in cashewnuts, lemon-grass oil etc. Out of the 300 shares, the assessee retained for himself 180 shares and caused the allotment of 10 shares each to his 2nd wife and 11 children. We are concerned with the dividends which accrued on the 40 shares appertaining to the 2nd wife and her 3 minor children. The Income-t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Banking Company
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ker57
ORDERVaradaraja Iyengar, J.1. The question has been raised as to the principle on which Advocate's fee should be calculated in connection with Banking Company claims,2. In the Rules issued by the High Court in 1952 under Section 16 of the Bar Councils Act XXXVIII of 1926, no specific reference is made in regard to the matter relating to fees payable to Advocates. It was indeed not possible to so refer because the Rules were framed on 11th March 1952 while the Banking Company Rules were themselves framed on 30-9-1952. Now there are three kinds of litigation which are Possible in these matters. Firstly suits which have been filed in subordinate Courts either as Small Cause Suits or original suits which have not been transferred to the High Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 45 (c) of the Banking Companies Act, secondly suits so filed but which have been transferred to the High Court, and thirdly claims against debtors of the Bank which are included in the lists of debtors to be settl...
Tag this Judgment!Thailambal Ammal Vs. Kesavan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ker86
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of their reversionary title as against the limited estate holder and her alienees, which has been dismissed by the Court below.2. The disputed properties belonged originally to the joint family of two Brahmin brothers Chidambara Iyer and Ramaswami Iyer. Ramaswami Iyer died in 1056 leaving his wife Parvathi Ammal deceased and a daughter Kavery Ammal who is the 2nd defendant in the case. Parvathi came into possession of the properties in 1056 after the death of her husband Ramaswami and continued in possession until her death in 1100, when she was succeeded by the 2nd defendant Kaveri.Soon thereafter, one of the sons of Chidambara filed suit O. S. 342 of 1100 before the District Munsiff's Court of Chittur against her as 2nd defendant and her lessee as the 1st defendant for recovery of the properties on foot of alleged title under a partition arrangement of 1087 entered into between the sons of Chidambara ...
Tag this Judgment!Thommen Thomas Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ker53; 1957CriLJ635
Koshi, C.J. 1. Thomas alias Kunju who was accused No. 2 in Sessions Case No. 38 of 1955 on the file of theParur Sessions Court has preferred this appeal against the convictions made against him by the learned Sessions Judge under Sections 302 and 324. I. P. C. and the sentences passed therefor. Finding him guilty for the murder of one Thornman he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. For causing hurt with a dangerous weapon to Thomman's younger brother Ouseph (P. W. 1) and to their mother Annam (P. W. 2) he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment respectively for 4 months and 3 months. The judgment directs that all the three sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The case against the appellant was that in the afternoon of 14-12-1953 he stabbed one Thomman to death and that he also inflicted stab wounds on Thomman's brother and mother - with the self-same weapon to wit, a pen-knife, with which he killed Thomman. Accused No. 1 in the case, one Kurian Kur...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern Mercantile Bank Ltd. Vs. Krishna Menon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ker100
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. The claim is on the basis of a pronote. The debtor admits the pronote but says that the claim is barred by limitation. It is apparently so but the Staff Security Ledger shows that the pronote amount was advanced on the security of the Staff Security Deposit of larger amount made by the defendant as an employee of the Bank. If so, there can be no question of limitation when the debt is sought to be enforced against the security. Even otherwise there is a distinction between a set-off claimed by the Liquidator and a set-off under the O. P. C. For while the latter should be of a legally claimable debt, the former need not fulfil that condition. See Thakur Prasad v. Benares Bank, AIR 1941 All 278 (A). The claim of the Bank is therefore allowed to be set-off against the claim of the debtorunder his staff security. The claim will therefore beremoved from the fist but the defendant will be entitled to proceed only for balance after set-offagainst the claim herein. No ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Kumaran Vs. Mathew J. Mattom
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ker119
Varadaraja Iyengar, J. 1. This appeal is by the defendants in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of property with mesne profits. 2. The property scheduled to the plaint originally belonged to Unti Raman. Under Ext. I partition arrangement Of 1084 in regard to the plaint and other properties, between Raman, his brother Krishnan and their two sisters, Raman did not take any share for himself and was content with a provision for contribution of certain amount every month by two Of the allottees. But at the same time the suit property was allotted to Raman's wife Cheeru for her enjoyment for life and thereafter to be taken by her four brothers specifically named. Cheeru died in Kumbhom 1124. But even during her life-time herself along with Raman gave away the property to the defendants, sons of Krishnan, by Ext. A deed of assignment dated 16-10-1088. The plaintiff obtained sale of the property from Cheeru's brothers and their legal representatives in 1951 under Exts. J, K and L. ...
Tag this Judgment!itten Narayanan Vs. Narayanan Nair Parameswaran Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ker18
Kumara Pillai, J.1. This is an appeal from the order dismissing an application for permission to discharge a debt, for the realisation of which a suit has been filed, by payments in instalments under the Travancore-Cochin Indebted Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1056 (President's Act III of 1956). The appellant had executed a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 4,000 in favour of the respondent on 21-10-1953, and the latter filed a suit on 4-6-1956 for recovery of this mortgage amount and interest thereon from 20-10-1953 till date of suit and future interest alleging that the mortgagor had not given him possession of the mortgage property in spite of the execution of the mortgage deed.The appellant contested the suit, contending inter alia that he had given possession of the mortgage property to the respondent and was not therefore liable to pay interest on the mortgage amount. While the suit was pending trial, the Travancore-Cochin Indebted Agriculturists' Relief Act of 1956 was passed by the P...
Tag this Judgment!Varkey John Vs. Varkey Thomas and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ker47
Kumara Pillai, J.1. The only point pressed in this Second Appeal is that the Court had no jurisdiction to sell the plaint' property in execution of Ext. A decree. That the plaint property is one of the properties liable to be sold in execution of that decree by the terms thereof is not disputed and is clear from the decree itself. But there is a direction in the said decree that the properties of defendant 3 therein should be sold first & that the properties belonging to defendant 4, who is the appellant here, should be sold only after the sale of defendant 3's properties. As the plaint property was sold in violation of that direction it is contended that the sale was without jurisdiction. A petition to set aside the sale on this ground has already been dismissed for default, and it is after, that dismissal that this suit has been filed.When the decree directs the sale of the property,it is wrong to say that the sale in execution is without jurisdiction although such sale was not in co...
Tag this Judgment!Kunchan Achari Padmanabhan Achari Vs. Yohannan Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ker37
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. These two appeals are by the assignee-decree-holder and are directed against the same order as to restitution in execution.2. The decree in the case was passed on 26-3-1112 on the contest of the 3rd defendant alone, as against the defendants 1 to 3 and charged on the property scheduled to the decree. On 'foot of this decree, the Court sale of the properly took place on 13-7-1113 and was confirmed, after dismissal of a petition under Order 21, Rule 90, C. P. C. filed by the defendants 2 and 3, on 13-1-1116 and the property was in due course delivered on 31-1-1118.Meanwhile on 7-4-1113 the 1st defendant applied to set aside the ex parte decree in the case as against him and got it set aside. The scope of the order under Order 9, Rule 13, as to whether it reopened the whole case was finally decided in G. R. P. 928 of 1121 to the effect that the reopening was only as against the 1st defendant. The suit after retrial, was decreed once again not only against the 1st ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »