Kerala Court February 1957 Judgments
Mathammal Saraswathi Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker102; 1957CriLJ852
Koshi, C.J.1. The appellant has been convicted by learned Addl. Sessions Judge of Quilon for three distinct offences of murder under Section 302 I. P. C. and for attempting to commit suicide, punishable under Section 309 I. P. C. For each offence of murder she has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and for that under Section 309 to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with the direction that all the four sentences shall run concurrently. The case against the appellant was that she caused the death of three of her children one aged 7, the second aged 5 and the third aged one by throwing them into a well and that afterwards she herself jumped into it with a view to commit suicide. She was, however, rescued by passers-by who heard her cries from the well, but by the time the bodies of the children were recovered the children were all dead. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found her guilty on all the four counts in the charge, convicted and sentenced her as stated abo...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmandas Vs. Karunakaran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker126
Kumara Pillai, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. Plaintiff and defendant 2 are brothers, and defendant 1 is their father. According to the plaint allegations, plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 constitute a joint Hindu family of which defendant 1 is the head and manager, and the plaint schedule properties (52 in number) belong to the said joint family, having been obtained by them under a partition of 1925 in the common family of which defendant 1 and his children had originally constituted a branch. Defendant 3 is the defendant 1's sister, and defendant 5 is her husband; Defendant 4 is the son of defendant 1's elder brother who had got divided from the branch of defendant 1, and defendant 6 is the wife of defendant 4. Defendant 7 is the wife of a brother of defendant 4.On two promissory notes executed by defendant 1, one in favour of defendant 3 and another in favour of defendant 4, defendants 3 and 4 obtained two decrees against defendant 1 and caused the plaint prop...
Tag this Judgment!State of Travancore-cochIn Vs. Janardana Pai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker151
Koshi, C.J. 1. The appeal is by the defendant-State against a decree to refund an amount of Rs. 1,700/- realised by them from the plaintiff on the ground thatwhile he was the treasurer of the District Treasury at Quilon by payment of the amount as per a bill for the said amount to a wrong person he caused loss to the Government to the extent of that amount, As per orders of the Government: to make good their loss, the plaintiff paid the amount into the Treasury on 15-1-1121 and the suit for its recovery was brought only on 22-7-1127. The two relevant Articles of the Limitation Act arc Articles 62 and 120, but whichever Article applies, the suit was in our opin-jon, brought beyond time.It is conceded by the plaintiff-respondent that if Article 62 applied the cause of action arose on 15-1-1121 itself, but the argument is Article 120 applied and the 'right to sue' accrued only after the Government refused to make the refund. It would appear that along with the payment the plainliff petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Mahamood Vs. Ayissu and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker140
Kumara Pillai, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for partition. Plaintiff is the appellant, and the suit and the second appeal have been brought on his behalf by a next friend. There was a previous suit for partition brought on behalf of the plaintiff by defendant 2, his mother, as the next friend. That suit was settled out of court by defendant 2 on behalf of the plaintiff, and Ext. B7 is the statement filed in that suit by the plaintiff's vakil regarding the settlement out of court, and Ext. B8 is the judgment dismissing the suit on account of the said settlement. In the present suit defendants 1 and 4 contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to get a share, that the suit was barred by reason of Ext. B8 and that they (i.e., defendants 1 and 4) were entitled to certain special rights. The courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff is entitled to get a share and that defendants 1 and 4 are also entitled to the special rights claimed by them.On the question ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Pillai Vs. Narayanan Vanajakshi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker93
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition by the defendant in a Small Cause Suit is directed against the decree passed against him for recovery of a sum of money alleged to be due as the price of goods 'sold. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendant was getting goods on credit from the shop belonging to Neelakantan Nanoo, the deceased husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 5. The balance due on 11-2-1953 was Rs. 75-12-2. The plaintiffs as heirs of Neelakantan Nanoo sued for recovery of the same. The defendant denied the transaction alleged in the plaint. According to him the transactions were closed before 1952. There was a further contention that the suit was barred by limitation. The learned Munsiff found that the defendant was getting goods on credit as alleged by the plaintiffs. The question of limitation was not decided. The suit was accordingly decreed in terms of the plaint.2. The two points pressed by the petitioner are : (i) that the plaint transaction is not ...
Tag this Judgment!Chirutha Amma Appili Amma Vs. Neelakanta Pillai Kunju Pillai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker106
Kumara Pillai, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for cancellation of a sale deed and recovery of possession of the property sold thereunder. Plaintiffs 1 to 7 are the children of defendant 8, and the plaintiffs' case is that the plaint property belonged to the sub-tarwad consisting of them and their mother, defendant 8, and that defendant 8 had sold the property on 26-6-1110 in favour of defendant 1 without consideration and tarwail necessity. The suit was filed on 7-7-1123. Defendant 1 contended that the suit was barred by limitation in as much as it was filed more than twelve years after the date of sale and more than three years after plaintiff 1 had attained majority and that the sale was supported by consideration and tarwad necessity and was not liable to be set aside. The trial Court found that the suit was not barred by limitation as it was filed within three years of the attainment of majority by plain-tiff 1. But it dismissed the suit holding that the sale was supp...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vasu Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker34
ORDERM.S. Menon, J.1. The prayer in the petition is that this Court should issue :'a writ of Prohibition or any other writ, Order or direction restraining the 2nd respondent (Inspector General of Prisons, Trivandrum) from carrying out the sentence of death on the petitioner and also to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, Order or direction quashing the warrant issued by the 1st respondent (Sessions Judge, Quiton) to carry out the sentence of death on the petitioner on 28-2-1957'.2. The petitioner was sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, Quilon, on 28-9-1955. He preferred an appeal to the High Court -- Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 1955 -- and the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence and ordered a trial de novo by a judgment dated 2-12-1955. The Additional Judge, Quilon, conducted the fresh trial and sentenced the petitioner to death on 21-2-1956. From the said judgment the petitioner preferred an appeal to the High Court -- Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1956 -- and ...
Tag this Judgment!Seithammarakkath Mammad Vs. Koyommatath Mammad
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker63
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. This Second appeal is by the plaintiff, in a suit on a promissory note which was decreed by the Munsiff but dismissed by the Subordinate Judge in appeal by the defendant.2. The promissory note in suit purports to be executed on 18-3-1949 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff or his order and is for a sum of Rs. 500/-. It is recited that Rs. 300/- out of the sum was borrowed on a previous occasion and the balance of Rs. 200/- was a present advance. It is written in the bottom portion of a half sheet of foolscap paper ana contains not alone the signature but also the thumb impressions of the executant.The plaint averred that the defendant falsely issued Ext. Bl notice through counsel on 20-6-1949 alleging entrustment with the plaintiff by the defendant of a blank sheet of paper containing the defendant's thumb impression for particular purpose and calling back for its return because the purpose was unfulfilled evidently suggesting that the promissory note w...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Kesavan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker78; 1957CriLJ755
Koshi, C.J.1. Krishnan Kesavan, the appellant, who was the accused in Sessions Case No. 55 of 1956 on the file of the Sessions Court of Trivandrum has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of that Court under Section 474, I.P.C., for having been in possession of a 'valuable security', to wit, a lease deed, knowing the same to lie forged and intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine and sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 year. The lease deed in question is Ext. P-3 and the case arose out of a complaint filed by P.W. 1 before the Taluk Second Class Magistrate of Chirayinkil on November 9, 1953.The complainant, who is an Advocate, alleged in his petition of complaint that on March 20, 1953 he had permitted the accused to live in a building situate in the northern portion of Parambil Purayidom in. Attingal Pakuthy for a period of 3 months and that when he demanded surrender of the same, the accused set up title to the buil...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ananda Rao Vs. Labour Officer, Mattancherry
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker55; 1957CriLJ637; (1957)ILLJ631Ker
M.S. Menon, J. 1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Second Class Magistrate of Cochin in Calendar Case No. 619 of 1954 by his judgment dated 22-12-1955. The concluding portion of the judgment reads as follows. . 'In the result I convict the accused under Section 45(1) of Act IX of 1125 read with Section 41 (3) of the said Act and sentence him to pay a fine of Rupees Twenty-five or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks.''2. Act IX of 1125 is the Travancore-Cochin Shops and Establishments Act, 1125. Sub-section (1) of Section 45 of that Act provides that any employer whocontravenes any of the provisions of the sections enumerated in that sub-section 'shall be punishable, for a first offence, with fine which may extend to twenty-five rupees and for a second and subsequent offence, with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees.' Section 41 is one of the sections mentioned in Section 45 (1) and it reads as follows: '(1) No employer shall dispense with t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »