Kerala Court April 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.
K.M. Narayanaswami Vs. Kerala State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker134; 1957CriLJ1127; (1959)ILLJ28Ker
Sankaran, J.1. The accused in Calendar Case No. 1/1955 on the file of the Special Judge's Court at Coimbatore is the appellant. The Principal Assistant Sessions Judge at Coimbatore was appointed as the Special Judge for trying cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947) and it was in that capacity as Special Judge that the case against the accused was tried. The accused is an employee under the Southern Railway and was functioning as the Assistant Goods Clerk attached to the Kasargode railway station during the relevant period i. e., between. 25-8-1954 and 13-10-1954.On getting information that he was in the habit of receiving illegal gratification from persons who had to consign goods from the Kasargode railway station to other places, P. W. 15 the Special Police Sub-Inspector attached to the Special Police establishment, Madras, proceeded to investigate into the matter after obtaining the necessary sanction and filed a charge-sheet against the accused.When the case ...
M.M. Aishoo Vs. Income-tax Officer, Alwaye and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker124
ORDERM.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner is a share-holder of Messrs. Mackar Pillai and Sons Ltd., Alwaye, and the respondents, the Income-tax Officer, Alwaye Circle, Alwaye, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum. The controversy relates to the assessment year 1954-55. During the relevant year of account the petitioner received a dividend of Rs. 1,000 from the company above, mentioned. The company itself had no income during the period concerned and was not assessed to Income-tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. Ext. P is the order of the 1st respondent (Income-tax Officer) dated 25-6-1955. He said :'As the company has not been taxed for 1953-54 no rebate is admissible to the shareholders on dividends'.3. The petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the 2nd respondent (Appellate Assistant Commissioner); but without success. Ext. P1 is the order in appeal dated 28-9-1956. The relevant portion of the appellate order reads as follows:'This is an appe...
Sarada Nayar Vs. Vayankara Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker158
Sankaran, J. 1. The order passed by the District Judge at Trichur in Guardian and Wards Petition No. 8/1954 on the file of his Court has given rise to these two appeals. The petitioner Sarada Nayar of Anavangode family in Palghat Taluk, was married to Dr. Vasunni Nair of Manakkampat family in the same Taluk. Their marriage took place on ,1-2-1948. A daughter was born to them on 17-4-1940 and this girl is known by the name of Nirmala alias Ammu. The relationship between Sarada Nayar and Dr. Vasunni continued to be happy only for a short period of 2 1/2 years after which misunderstandings arose between them and by about 1954 their continued residence under the same roof became very difficult. Dr. Vasunni Nayar who was originally in military service, had been discharged from that service in the year 1947 and at the time of his marriage with Sarada Nayar he was employed as an Assistant Surgeon under the Madras Government and was staying at Madras. Because of this strained relationship betw...
Kottayam Bank Ltd. Vs. Ahammed Kannu Rawther
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker164
Raman Nayar J. 1. In answer to a suit on the foot of a promissory note the defendant, who is the respondent before us, denied execution and consideration, and contended also that the suit was not by the promisee, a banking company, but only by its power of attorney agent who had no right to sue, and that the suit was therefore liable to rejection. The Court below found against the defendant both on the question of execution and consideration, but, surprisingly enough, holding in his favour on his contention regarding the frame of the suit, dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has therefore appealed. 2. The cause title of the plaint which is in Malayalam may be translated as follows : 'The Kottayam Bank Ltd., For the above Bank its Mukthiyar C. K. Parameswara Panicker'. In the face of this cause title we find it difficult to understand how the Court below was able to say, 'In the present case it admits of no doubt that the plaintiff is C. K. Pavameswara Panicker and not the Kottayam Bank L...
M. M. Aishoe Vs. Income-tax Officer, Alwaye Circle, and Another.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-1957
Reported in: [1957]32ITR306(Ker)
M. S. MENON, J. - The petitioner is a shareholder of Messrs. Mackar Pillai & Sons Ltd., Alwaye, and the respondents, the Income-tax Officer,Alwaye Circle, Alwaye, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum. The controversy relates to the assessment year 1954-55. During the relevant year of account the petitioner received a dividend of Rs. 1,000 from the company above mentioned. The company itself had no income during the period concerned and was not assessed to income-tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. Exhibit P is the order of the first respondent (Income-tax Officer) dated 25th June, 1955. He sai :'As the company has not been taxed for 1953-54 no rebate is admissible to the shareholders on dividends.'The petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the second respondent (Appellate Assistant Commissioner), but without success. Exhibit P1 is the order in appeal dated 28th September, 1956. The relevant portion of the appellate order reads as follow :'...
Kesavan Namboori Vs. Subhadra and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker384
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree in O. S. 92 of 1122 on the file of the District Court of Mavelikara. That was a suit filed by a junior member of a Nambudiri Illom to set aside various alienations made by the seniors while yet the plaintiff was a minor.The court below after elaborate trial dismissed the suit except in regard to the prayer for setting aside Ext. XIX sale deed as regards item 1 in favour of the 6th defendant's father. A S. 584 of 1952 is by the 6th defendant for upholding Ext. XIX while A. S. 551 of 1954 is by the plaintiff with regard to his prayers disallowed. We will first take up the plaintiffs appeal.2. A. S. 551 of 1957. This appeal by the plaintiff seeks once again to raise the validity of Ext. IX and Ext. XVI sales by the adult members of the Illom and also of the decree in Ext. II suit and the court sale thereon obtained against those members. We will take them up one by one.3. First as regards Ext. IX sale deed. Th...
Parameswaram Pillai Raman Pillai Vs. Lekshmi Pilla Kamalamma Pilla and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-01-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker144
T.K. Joseph, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The property which is the subject-matter of the suit belonged to one Sun-daram Pillai. On his death it devolved on his son Nataraja Pillai who was adjudged insolvent In Insolvency Case No 6 of 1100 of the District Court of Trivandrium. The plaintiff's case is that the Official Receiver sold the property in auction and later executed a sale-deed to Sankara Warier, the auction-purchaser. The latter conveyed his rights to the plaintiff and the suit was instituted on the basis of title thus acquired. The mortgage right belonged to the 1st defendant on the date of suit and the 2nd defendant was stated to be in possession under her.According to the plaintiff, the mortgagee had effected some improvements and had also committed waste on the property. The plaintiff prayed for redemption of the mortgage on payment of the mortgage money and value of improvements. He also prayed for recovery of damages on account of ...
Karanakodam Gowdasaraswatha Brahmana Samajam Vs. Paulo Ouseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-01-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker108
M.S. Menon, J.1. The decree-holder In O. S. No. 43 of 1107 of the Court of the District Munsiff, Er-nakulam, is the appellant in this second appeal. His execution petition E. P. No. 423 of 1954 was dismissed by the learned District Munsiff on the ground that it was barred by limitation and the dismissal has beenconfirmed by the learned District Judge of Anjikaimal by bis judgment in A. S. No. 19 of 1955.2. The main question for decision is whether the order of the District Munsiff dated 3-8-1951 in E. P. No. 1695 of 1950 can be considered as a 'subsequent order' within the meaning of Section 48(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The order in E. P. No. 1695 of 1950 reads as follows:'Judgment-debtors are allowed to pay at the rate of Rs. 10 per month from 6-10-1951 for 6 months and thereafter the balance in a lump or in default in a lump. Rs. 20 paid today.'' and from the payments made in pursuance of the order I must assume that it had the consent of the decree-holder.3. Sectio...
Mrs. Rocky Flora Gomez and ors. Vs. Parvathy Ammal Chellammal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-01-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker175
T.K. Joseph, J. 1. This suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiffs for redemption of a mortgage effected by their father in favour of one Lekshmna Iyer on 21-10-1102 for a sum of Rs. 12000. It was provided in the deed of mortgage that if the mortgage was not redeemed within 4 years it would work itself out into a sale of the properties. The mortgagor sued for redemption in the year 1106 but the plaint was rejected for nonpayment of court-fees. Thereafter the mortgagee got patta transferred, to his name which resulted in another suit by the mortgagor for cancellation of the procecdings resulting in transfer of patta but the suit was dismissed holding that the change of patta did not affect title, if any, of the mortgagor.After the death of the mortgagor the plaintiffs instituted this suit for redemption. . According to them a sum of Rs. 2137 staled in the deed of mortgage as having been received on an earlier date was not actually paid and another sum of Rs. ...
Raghavan Vs. Soumini Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-01-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker178
Varadaraja Iyengar, J. 1. This appeal is by the sole defendant and arises out of a suit for partition in a Malabar Tarwad which has been decreed by the court below.2. The plaintiffs 1 to 4 and the defendant comprises a Marumakkthayam thavazhi governed by the Madras Marumakkathayam Act. The defendant is the Karnavan and 'Manager of the thavazhi, The 'first plaintiff is his deceased sister's daughter and the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the children of the 1st plaintiff. The plaintiffs claim partition by metes and bounds of their 4/5th share in the two schedules of property B and C attached to the plaint. B schedule consists of two items of immovable property.Item 1 of the B schedule is the subject of a controversy between the parties. For, while the plaintiffs claim it to be a puthravakasam gift in favour of the thavazhi, the defendant claims that it was a joint acquisition by way of tenancy-in-common in the names of himself, his mother and his sister, viz., 1st plaintiff's mother and with the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »