Kerala Court June 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.
Pedru Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ175
ORDERSankaran, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the accused in C.C. No. 60 of 1956 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate at Fort Cochin. All the lour accused in that case stood charged with having committed the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case against them is that at about 11-30 p.m. on 9-4-1956 when P.W. 3 came out of his house the first accused approached him and beat him. On hearing his cries P.Ws. 1 and 2 also came out. By this time accused 2 and 4 also rushed to the place. Accused 2 and 4 beat P.Ws. 1 and 2 with hands. The third accused beat P.W. 1 with a stick. The first accused also beat P.W. 1 with the torch M.O. 2. The next morning P.Ws. .1 and 2 went to the police station and gave the statement Ex. P-l about this occurrence. The police registered a case against accused and P.Ws. 1 and 2 were sent to the Medical Officer for treatment. Exhibits P-5 and P-6 are the wound certificates describin...
K.K. Koran Vs. T. Tara Bai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker124
Sankaran, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant in O. S. No, 494/1951 on the file of theDistrict Munsiff's Court at Hosdrug, South Kanara. The plaintiff's claim in the suit is lor recovery of the principal amount of Rs. 1,200/- together with interest thereon, alleged to be due to her under a promissory-note executed by the defendant on 18-11-1948. The promissory-note was not filed along with the plaint, on the other hand, it was alleged by the plaintiff that the note was lost. Accordingly the suit was filed as on a lost negotiable instrument. The defendant, while admitting the execution of the promissory-note, resisted the suit mainly on two grounds. The first ground is thait no cash consideration passed under the note and that the note was executed towards part of the consideration due to the plaintiff under the sale deed Ext. A4 which was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant on the same date. The second ground is that the allegation that the note was lost is f...
Kunhambu Nambiar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker174; 1957CriLJ1264
ORDERSankaran, J.1. In this revision petition filed by the accused, in C. C. No. 488 of 1956 on the file of the Sub Magistrate at Cannanore, the sustainability of the conviction entered against him by the sub Magistrate under Section 225B of the Indian Penal Code and which was confirmed by the District Magistrate of Malabar, has been challenged by him. The prosecution case is that in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 55 of 1950 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court at Taliparamba, the court had issued a warrant of arrest against the judgment-debtor accused and that P. W. 5, the process server to whom the warrant had been entrusted, arrested the accused at about 4-30 p.m. in Kokkanisseri bazar, on 7-3-1956 and that the accused ran away and escaped from the lawful custody of the process server.Ext. P1 is the warrant under which the accused was arrested, After the accused had escaped from the lawful custody of P. W. 5, the latter returned the warrant to the court with the endorse...
Ayyappan Raman and ors. Vs. Kunju Vakki Ithappiri and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker386
K.T. Koshi, C.J. 1. These two Second Appeals arise from a suit for contribution instituted before the Ernakulam Munsiff's Court. The plaintiff who has preferred both the appeals is a second mortgagee (usufructuary) of three out of thirteen items of properties comprised in an earlier simple mortgage. The first mortgage, that is, the simple mortgage referred to, was brought into existence on 17-6-1093 (30-1-1918) by the members of an undivided Ezhava family and it was for a consideration of Rs. 900. Some time after that the family got itself divided and the eldest brother Kunjan got plaint schedule items 1 to 3, the second, Kochu Pillai, items 4 to 7, the third Kandu items 8 to 10 and the fourth, Padmanabhan items 11 to 13. The mortgage debt remaining impaid and the mortgagee having died, his successor-in-interest brought a suit in O.S. 426 of 1105 on the file of the Ernakulam Munsiff's Court for recovery of the debt. To that suit, among others, the four brothers and their mother, the pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›