Kerala Court November 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.
Sreekrishnanarayana Rao Vs. Republic of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker136; 1958CriLJ640; (1958)IILLJ728Ker
Raman Nayak, J.1. The appellant accused, has been convicted by the Special Judge, Trivandrum (a Judge appointed under Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, (XLVI/1952) ) of an offence under Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.2. The following facts are amply borne out by the evidence and were indeed admitted by the accused when questioned at the trial under Section 342 Crl. P. C. The accused was an Assistant Garrison Engineer in the Military Engineering Service, a gazetted post under the Central Government. He was a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Prom 1951, up to his transfer in April 1953, he was stationed at Willingdon Island, Cochin, and was living in Ernakulam.On 10-3-1953, Pw. 2 an engineering contractor of the accused's department, who was, at the time, e...
(Krishna Pillai) Kesavan Nair and ors. Vs. (Krishna Pillai) Padmanabha ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker158
Sankaran, J.1. The first defendant in O. S. No. 107/1124 on the file of the Trivandrum District Court has preferred this appeal against the final decree in the case. The suit was instituted by the two plaintiffs for partition and recovery of their shares out. of the plaint schedule properties. These plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 7 are members of the same tarwad of which the first defendant was the kar-mavan in management until the disruption of the tarwad as a result of the partition decree passed in the case. The plaintiffs were minors at the time of the suit and their father represented them as their next friend in the suit. The 5th defendant is the mother of the defendants 1 to 4, 6 and 7. The plaintiffs are the children of deceased Sumathi Amma, who was a daughter of the 5th defendant.The plaintiffs' suit for partition was resisted by defendants 1 and 3 on several grounds. The trial Court repelled all their contentions and passed a preliminary decree for partition in favour of the...
Krishnan Vs. Mammu and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Ker24
K.T. Koshi, C.J.1. This is an application invoicing the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code and Article 227 of the Constitution, to quash the order the learned Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry passed on 21-6-1956 In C. M. A. No. 695 of 1955 on his file. By the said order the learned Subordinate Judge set aside the decision of the Rent Court, Badagara, dismissing F. R, P. No. 133 of 1954-55 and remitted the tenant's application for fixation of fair rent of a holding hack to that court for fresh enquiry and disposal. The holding consists of 2O cents of garden land and it would appear that it first went into the possession of the tenant over 50 years prior to the date of the application. The tenure of the holding is kanom.The Rent Court found that there was no sufficient or satisfactory evidence to decide which among the trees standing on the property now, belong to the landlord and which to the tenant. The learned Subordinate Judge held that that was a ...
Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker96
ORDERM.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner challenges the validity of Ext. C, a notification of the Government of Kerala dated 14-6-1957 and published in the Kerala Government Gazette dated 18-6-1957, Part 1, page 1327. The opening words of the notification read as follows:'Under Section 120 of the States Reorganization-Act, 1956 the Government of Kerala hereby order that the undernoted notification is made applicable to the Districts of Kozhikode, Palghat, Can-nanore and other areas in the former Malabar District which have been transferred to the Tri-chur District with effect from 18-6-1957.'2. The 'undernoted' notification is a notification of the Government of Travancore-Cochin dated 20-3-1952 and published in the Travoncore-Cochin Government Gazette dated 25-3-1952, Part 1, page 315:'In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act XI or 1948), Government are hereby pleased to fix the minimum rates of wages pay...
Shankeranarayana Devapojathayya Vs. Ramakrishna therekunjathayya and a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker211
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the sale-deed Ex. B4, executed by the 1st defendant, the father of the plaintiff, regarding item 3 of plaint B schedule, is binding on the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff is the only son of the 1st defendant and his suit was for a partition of the joint family properties by metes and bounds, ignoring the several alienations made by the 1st defendant and for allotment to him of a half-share in all the items.3. Though several transactions of the father were challenged in the suit, the controversy in this appeal is mainly regarding the alienation made under Ex. B4 by the 1st defendant. The benefit of the suit transaction has ultimately enured to the 5th defendant, who is the appellant before us.4. The plaintiff alleged that he and the father, the 1st defendant, are members of a Mithakshara joint Hindu family of which the father was the Yejman and that they owned the several items of properties menti...
Kallianikutty Amma Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker279; 1958CriLJ1186
K.T. Koshi, C.J.1. This revision is against a conviction under the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920.2. In January 1951 the petitioner herein, Smt. P. Kallianikutty Amma, obtained sanction from the Kozhikode Municipality to erect a building in her Ayyarkulam paramba in Ward 2 of the said Municipality. The sanction was communicated to her under date 7-1-1951 and it would appear the building was to be completed within a period of 6 months. The usual verification of the building after its construction, however, took place only in September 1955, when it was found that there was an unauthorised construction of a bath-room.There was no provision in the approved plan for any bath-room. The Municipal Commissioner therefore issued a notice to the petitioner under date 25-9-1955 inviting her attention to the unauthorised construction of the bath-room and requesting her to submit plan and remit the necessary licence fees within 7 days of the date of receipt of this order failing which the...
Parameshwara Bharathikal Vs. Pappan Padmanabhan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker270
T.K. Joseph, J.1. This second appeal arises from an order in execution of a decree passed by the District Munsiff of Attingal on 30-8-1951. The decre was for recovery of a sum of money due as Thiruppuvarora from the Defendants and the properties scheduled to the decree. The first application for execution was filed on 2-4-1955, beyond a period of 3 years from the date of the decree. The defendants contended that execution was barred under Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act as the decree was not a registered one.The execution Court overruled this objection holding that the Travancore Limitation Act under which the period of 6 years was available to the decree-holder had not been repealed by the Legislature even though the Indian Limitation Act was extended to this State in 1951. The 1st defendant preferred an appeal from this order and the learned Subordinate Judge of Attingal allowed the appeal holding that execution was barred by limitation. The decree-holder has therefore prefe...
Raman Gangadharan Vs. Kochukunju Lekshmanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker105
Koshi, C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of proceedings to execute a decree for redemption passed by the District Court of Quilon on 30-8-1955. The decree awarded compensation for value of improvements and when the decree-holder sought to obtain delivery on payment of the compensation fixed by the decree and the mortgage money, the judgment-debtor claimed a revaluation of the improvements. Two grounds wereurged in support of that claim. The first one was that in view of the enactment of the Travan-core-Cochin Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1956, he was entitled to value of improvements according to the provisions of that Act notwithstanding the decree settling the value of compensation as per the old customary law in Travancore and the other, that he was entitled to the value of further improvements effected by him subsequent to the date up to which compensation has been adjudged in the decree. The learned District Judge of Quilon before whom the matter came up for decision re...
N.C. John's Trust, Alleppey Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker166
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. These appeals arise out of the acquisition by the Government of 96 cents of land in Survey No. 515/3A-11 of Alleppey Pakuthy, Am-balapuzha Taluk for the construction of quarters of the Resident Medical Officer, District Hospital, Alleppey. 2. The relevant date for purpose of computing the market value is 30-6-1947, being the date of notification under Section 6 of the Travancore Act XI of 1089. 3. The claim before the Land Acquisition. Officer was at Rs. 350/- per cent and the Award was at Rs. 80/- per cent. Being dissatisfied with the Award, the claimants made a reference to court and in the court they restricted their claim to Rs. 250/- per cent. The learned Judge increased the valuation and awarded at the rate of Rs. 120/- per cent. 4. A. S. No. 111 of 1954 has been filed by the claimants desiring the value to be fixed at Rs. 250/- per cent. A. S. No. 140 of 1954 has been filed by the State against the increase awarded by the court. The State also takes a poi...
C.M. Francis and Co. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-1957
Reported in: [1958]9STC8(Ker)
M.S. Menon, J. 1. The petitioner is a firm consisting of four partners and registered under the Travancore Partnership Act (Act XII of 1115). Proceedings were started in 1954 for the recovery of the arrears of sales tax in respect of the years 1950-54 under the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951, as authorised by Section 13 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125. Section 13 reads as follows :-- The tax assessed under this Act shall be paid in such manner, and in such instalments, if any, and within such time, as may be specified in the-notice of assessment, not being less than fifteen days from the date of service of the notice. In default of such payment, the whole of the amount then remaining due may be recovered as if it were an arrear of land revenue. 2. The proceedings apparently proved infructuous, and a prosecution under Section 19 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125, was launched as C. C. No. 904 of 1955 in the Court of the First Class M...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »