Kerala Court January 1957 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kunhabdulla Vs. Krishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker33
ORDERKumara Pillai, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition for revising the decree passed by the Additional District Munsiff of Tellicheny on 27-11-1954 in Small Cause Suit No. 56 of 1954 of his Court, a suit for recovery of arrears of rent of a shop building. The plaintiff in the lower court is the revision petitioner here, In December 1951 he leased the plaint shop to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 6 and the latter executed in his favour the lease deed, Ext. AI.Subsequently the plaintiff went to Burma, and while he was in Burma the defendant sent him a registered notice on 29-7-1952 alleging that he had already paid some rent to the plaintiff and stating that he was no longer using the plaint shop and that as the plaintiffs brother-in-law had refused to accept his (defendant's) offer to surrender the shop the plaintiff must make arrangements to take possession of the shop and receive the arrears of rent subsisting after the payment made by him within a week of the receipt of ...
Kunjikavu Amma Vs. Janaki Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker98
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for enforcement of alleged prior charge or for redemption, which has been concurrently dismissed by the courts below.2. The plaint schedule property was originally owned by the plaintiff Kunhi Kavammal, She first executed Ext. A fidelity bond on 26-3-1100, securing the property for a sum of Rs. 500 towards guarantee of the faithful discharge, by her brother, of his duties as Muthalpadi etc., in the Cochin Kovilakam. Thereafter in 1105, she executed, in favour of the defendants, a simple mortgage and also a Putakadom for an aggregate sum of Rs. 350. This debt in due course led to the decree and execution proceedings in O. S. No. 144 of 1109 on the file of the Irinjalakuda Munsiff's Court whereby the defendants themselves became -the purchasers of the property but subject only to the prior charge, to the extent of Rs. 500 under Ext. A.This Court sale was on 7-5-1112, Ext. I being the sale sannad. The defendants too...
Sankaran Parameswaran Namboori Vs. Veeramani Pattar Narayana Pattar an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker117
Vardaraja Iyengar, J. 1. This appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage which was allowed by the trial court hut dismissed by the lower appellate court in appeal by the defendants 1 and 5. 2. The plaint whole property appertained to the plaintiff's Illom and was mortgaged with possession under Ext. A dated 24-9-1061 in favour of Veeramony Pattar, deceased. Veeramony Pattar left three sons Narayana Pattar, the 1st defendant, Subramonia Iyer, the ancestor of defendants 2 to 4 and Krishna Iyer, deceased, who partitioned the property among themselves as if it belonged to them absolutely in jcnm and took 1/3 each. This was in 1074 and. 1077. Subsequently Krishna Iyer accepted Ext. B mortgage of 1097 from the mortgagor Illom with reference to his 1/3 interest and we are accordingly not concerned with it. Defendants 2 to 4 in their capacity as heirs of Subramonia Iyer conveyed a portion of their 1/3 interest in favour of the 5th defendant'under Ext. III tr...
In Re: Kunjan Raghavan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker32; 1957CriLJ634
M.S. Menon, J.1. The First Class Magistrate of Sherthallai madean order on 10-7-1956 committing the six personscharged in P. E. No. 2 of 1938 for trial by the Courtof Sessions at Alleppey. The concluding portion ofthe order reads as follows : 'I, therefore, find that there is a prima facie case against A. 1 for offences under Ss. 341, 323 and 302. I. P. C. and against the others under Ss. 341, 323/114 and 302/114, I. P. C. Formal charge was framed against the accused under these sections, read put to them and explained. They are committed to the Sessions Court, Alleppey, to stand their trial. The existing bail bonds are cancelled'.2. The Additional Sessions Judge of Alleppey. has stated in a report under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, dated 10-12-1956;'The order of committal passed by the learned Magistrate has to be quashed on account of this failure to comply with the provisions of Sub-section 4 of Section 207-A, Cr. P. C. It is seen from the records of the case...
Kunjan Vs. Kochu Pennu and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker96
Varadaraja Iyengar, J. 1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit on a chitty hypothecation bond which has been concurrently dismissed by the courts below. 2. There were two divided brothers Achuthan and Aiyappan. The 1st defendant is the widow and the 3rd defendant is the son of Achuthan. The 2nd defendant is the wife of Aiyappan. In or about 1104 while Achuthan was still alive, Aiyappan had joined in a chitty scheme started by the 1st plaintiff. Subsequent to Achuthan's death Aiyappan bid the ticket and received the prize money by getting the 1st defendant on her own behalf and as guardian of her minor son the 3rd defendant, to execute along with his wife the 2nd defendant, a chitty hypothecation bond in favour of the foreman as if the chitty ticket had been taken for the benefit of defendants 1 and 2 from the very inception. This chitty hypothecation bond is dated 24-8-1106 and is filed as Ext. A. The plaint schedule property which belonged to Achuthan and after his death h...
Burmah-shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. and ors. V ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1957
Reported in: (1957)IILLJ51Ker
ORDERN. Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. The three petitions herein have been filed by three different oil companies at Ernakulam, viz., the Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India, Ltd., the Caltex (India), Ltd., and the Standard Vacuum Oil Company, under Article 226 of the Constitution. The common respondents are firstly the industrial tribunal, Ernakulam, secondly the general secretary, Petroleum Worker Union, Ernakulam, representing the workmen of the respective petitioner company and thirdly the workmen themselves. The question raised by all these petitions is the same and concerns the validity of an interim award passed by the first respondent tribunal on 1 December 1956 in favour of the third respondent workmen and filed as Ex. E.2. By order dated 24 August 1956 the Travancore-Cochin State Government referred an industrial dispute between the three oil companies and their workmen to the. first respondent tribunal, covering a single matter:What should be the bonus paya...
P.V. Isaac Vs. Mrs. Susan Isaac
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker61; 1957CriLJ639
ORDERSankaran, J.1. This Revision petition is directed against the continuance of the proceedings in Miscellaneous Case No. 15/1955 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court at Kottayam. The proceedings in that case have been initiated under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the wife of the revision petitioner, claiming maintenance from him on the ground that he is neglecting to maintain her. While admitting the relationship of the parties, the revision petitioner had denied the several allegations made against him by his wife in support of her claim for separate maintenance from him. He also questioned the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Kottayam to initiate proceedings against him under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the reasons stated by him being that he is permanently residing at Ootacamund outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Kottayam,This matter was considered as a preliminary issue by...
Raman Kunhappu Vs. Ali Ahamed Muhammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker80
Varadaraja Iyengar, J. 1. In this appeal by the plaintiff landlord, the only question is as to the value payable by the defendant, lessee in respect of the commodities which had been fixed as part of the yearly dues. The provision in the kanom deed referred to the money value also when mentioning the commodities e. g. so many cocoanuts worth so much money etc. The plaintiff claimed that the money value was mentioned only for purpose of stamp duty, that the liabilities of the lessee in the contemplation of parties was primarily to provide in kind -- cocoanuts or plantain bunch etc., as the case may be and that therefore the plaintiff was entitled to recover the market value at the rate prevailing when the liability was incurred. The courts below held against the. plaintiff and directed payment on the basis of the money value indicated in the document and hence this appeal. 2. There was a prior suit O. S. 317 of 1120 filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the dues from 105 to 109. The ca...
Sarojini Bai Vs. Krishna Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker114
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. This second appeal is by the 1st defendant' attaching decree-holder in a suit by a defeated claimant which was dismissed by the trial court but allowed by the lower appellate court.2. The 1st defendant obtained decree in O. S. No. 484 of 1950 of the District Munsiff's Court, Cochin, against the 2nd defendant, for certain rent arrears. Pending that Suit he had levied attachment before judgment of a few articles of furniture consisting of an almyrah, table, chair etc. and valued at about Rs. 130/- as Belonging to his debtor the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff thereupon filed Ext. E petition dated 11-9-1950 setting up claim to the attached articles. The petition was enquired into after the suit was decreed and rejected by the Munsiff by his order Ext. D dated 1-8-1952, This suit was then filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his title to the articles in question and which have been itemised in the margin of the plaint. According to the plaintiff he was a sub-tena...
Thomas George Vs. Pazhavangadikara Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker85
M.S. Menon, J.1. This petition challenges the validity of an auction conducted by the Pazhavangadikara Panchayat on 22-3-1956 in respect of the public market at Ittiyapara within the area of the said Panchayat. There was a similar auction in March 1955 and the petitioner himself was the successful bidder at that auction.2. Paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed by the executive officer, of the Panchayat (1st respondent) makes it clear that what was sold at the auction in March 1955 was 'the right to vend beef for the period of one year from 1-4-1955' and para. 6 of the affidavit says:'The period of the permission to the petitioner being due to expire on 31-3-1956 the right to vend beef in the said market for another year was sold in public auction on 22-3-1956 after giving duo notice of the same. That auction has been confirmed in the name of the second respondent for an amount of Rs. 2,806.'3. According to the petitioner the auctioning of the right to vend beef in the market is not warran...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »