Kerala Court July 1957 Judgments
E. Raghava Warrier Vs. State of T.C.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker79; (1958)IILLJ76Ker
M.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner is a professor in the Government College at Chittur. According to him the promotion of the 2nd respondent as a first grade professor of languages and the ranking of the petitioner as the 9th among the second grade professors constitute a violation of the Service Regulations and Standing Orders of the Government of Cochin. His contention is that he is senior to the 2nd respondent and the eight second grade professors ranked above him and that the Government's decision in that behalf violates the provisions of the said Regulations and Standing Orders. Of the eight persons ranked above the petitioner, three have retired and respondents 5 to 8 are the five who still remain in service.2. The first question for determination is whether a violation of the Service Regulations and Standing Orders, even if proved, is amenable to correction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The answer will depend on whether they can be considered as 'an existing ...
Tag this Judgment!Govindan Nair Vs. Secy., CochIn Devaswom Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ker188
M.S. Menon, J. 1. Section 113(2) of the Travancore-Cochin HinduReligious Institutions Act, 1950, reads as follows:'The provisions of the Devaswom Proclamation dated the 29th day of Makarom 1085 corresponding to the 11th day of February 1910 and the rules issued thereunder in respect of the procedure to be adopted and the mode of recovery of pattern, michavarom, renewal fees and other dues shall apply mutatis mutandis to the procedure and mode of recovery of pattom, michavarom, renewal fees and other dues relating to incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and to the institutions whose management has been assumed under the provisions of the Cochin Hindu' Religious Institutions Act, 1 of 1081, or is assumed under the provisions of Part II of this Act'.and the contention before us in these two petitions is that the said sub-section in so far as they relate to Devaswoms 'assumed' under Act, I of 1081 is ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution whichprovides that:''The State shall no...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. P. Krishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker55; 1958CriLJ381; [1957]8STC738(Ker)
Raman Nayab, J. 1. The State appeals against the acquittal of ' the same accused person of three offences under Section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as it stood before the amendment by Madras Act XV of 1956. There were three separate trials and there are three appeals but, the question involved being the same the appeals have been heard together and can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. In the case of Criminal Appeal 39 of 1957, the assessment is for the year 1950-51 and the tax remaining unpaid is Rs. 5278-3-0; in Criminal Appeals 2 of 1957, for the year 1951-52, Rs. 1872-0-4; and in Criminal Appeal 3 of 1957 for the year 1952-53, Rs. 662-15-3.3. That the amounts mentioned above are due in respect of assessments made by competent authority under the provisions of the Act (in two of the cases after the accused had challenged the assessment in appeal) was, and is, not disputed. The accused's defence was that the assessments w...
Tag this Judgment!Ayisumma and ors. Vs. Kunhammayan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker84
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. This appeal is by the defendants in a suit to recover back possession of property and filed in the following circumstances.2. The plaintiff had a Kudi Jenmom interest in the property concerned. He demised the same under Ext. A-1 kanom in l927 in favour of Noorayan who was the husband of the 1st defendant and took a lease-back under Ext. A-2. For arrears of rent due under the lease-back Noorayan obtained decree in O. S. 313 of 1934 with provision also to enforce the statutory charge over the tenancy right of the plaintiff in the property and in execution brought the tenancy right to sole and purchased it himself and in due course took delivery of the property on 14-3-1938.On the Madras Agriculturists' Belief Act, 1938 coming into force, the plaintiff applied for and obtained orders dated 13-7-1938 setting aside the execution sale aforesaid under Section 23 of that Act. He filed this suit subsequently on 24-12-1949 for recovery of possession of his tenancy right ...
Tag this Judgment!Savithri Antharjanam Vs. Kuruvilla Kuriyakose
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker325
Kumara Pillai, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for cancellation of two decrees in so far as they relate to certain properties. There are three items of properties in the plaint schedule. The plaintiff, a Nambudiri Brahmin lady, claimed that all these items belonged to the illom consisting of herself and her husband, defendant 3, and their children, and that the two decrees impugned in the plaint, Exts. D and E, which were obtained by defendants 1 and 2 against defendant 3, were not binding on the illom and the illom properties.The Court below found that plaint items 2 and 3 were illom properties and that the two decrees were not binding on the said properties. So far as item 1 was concerned it took the view that the said property was the separate property of defendant 3, and that even if the plaintiff and her children had any right to the property the validity of the mortgages executed by defendant 3 on the foot of which the two decrees had been obtained by defendants 1 and 2 cou...
Tag this Judgment!Sankara Pillai Kujukrishna Pillai Vs. Ananda Pillai Bharathi Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker307
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by a junior member in a branch of the Kuttamathu Nair tarwad in Pallichal Pakuthy, to set aside certain alienations as well as a partition effected by and among the members of the other branch of defendants 6 to 15 as if it had long ago become divided, The plaintiff's case was that all the evidence afforded by registered documents as well as judicial pronouncements pointed only one way, viz., the joint undivided status of the members of both the branches.The court below after elaborate discussion held against the contentions of the defendants 6 to 15 and found that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 15. constituted an undivided tarwad and that the properties scheduled to the plaint belonged to the common tarwad. This finding though disputed in the appeal memorandum is not questioned before us, The matter which is pressed before us concerns one other question between the parties which formed the subject of issues 4 to 6 in the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Ouseph Chacko Vs. Krishna Pillai Govinda Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker22
Koshi, C.J.1. This Second Appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the concurrent decisions of the two Courts below, dismissing a suit he brought under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 103, C. P. C. As the assignee decree-holder in O. S. 553 of 1101 on the file of the Changanacherry Munsiff's Court, the plaintiff brought the plaint schedule -property to sale and himself purchased it (22-12-1106). That decree was one obtained on foot of a simple mortgage defendant 1 executed in favour of the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest on 28-2-1100 (Ex. E).Afterwards on 12-4-1101 defendant 1 sold the property to defendant 2 (Ex. D), Defendants 1 and 2 were defendants 1 and 2 respectively in O. S. 553 of 1101 and they were the only defendants to that suit. Soon after the Court sale in his favour was confirmed and he obtained the sale certificate therefor, the plaintiff made an application to the Court to obtain delivery of the property. Coming to know of this application, defendant 5 to the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Nair Sivasankaran Nair Vs. Sankaran Krishnan Namboori and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker30
Koshi, C.J.1. This second appeal must fail on the short ground that the lower appellate Court was right, in our view, when it reversed the trial Court's judgment and decree and held that the suit was barred by time. The lower appellate Court also found that the plaintiffs' claim to recover possession of their half share of the plaint properly was also barred by adverse possession, but in the view we take on the question of limitation it is unnecessary for us to go into the question of adverse possession.2. To confine ourselves strictly to the facts that are relevant for purposes of the second appeal, the plaintiffs, two in number, claimed a half share of the plaint schedule property as two out of the four heirs of their deceased father, one Sankara Pillai. The latter died in Meenam 1095 leaving as his heirs his widow (defendant 5) two sons (defendant 4 and plaintiff 1) and a daughter (plaintiff 2).On 28-3-1111 defendants 4 and 5, the latter acting also as the guardian of the two plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Govindan Vs. Janaki Kunjamma Kalliyani Kunjamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker18
Koshi, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 21 (1) of the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act 1125 against the decision a learned Single Judge gave in S. A. 395 of 1123. The suit giving rise to that Second Appeal was one instituted by a junior member of a marumakkathayam tarwad to set aside an alienation (sale) effected by the karnavan and other adult members at a time when the plaintiff was a minor. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit and in appeal the District Court confirmed that decision.In Second Appeal the learned Single Judgereversed the concurrent decisions and sent the case back to the trial Court to enquire whether there was legal necessity for an outright sale and if not, to annul the sale at the same time permitting the alienee to remain in possession of the property until the consideration paid for the sale was made good to him. The direction was that in case the trial Court found that without an out-right sale, that is, by a mortgage, simple or usufructuary, the...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kunchachumma and ors. Vs. the Chalapuram Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker318
Vaidialingam, J. 1. This is an appeal by defendants 2 and 4 to 7 against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode, passed against them in O. S. 98 of 1949.The suit was by the plaintiff, 1st respondent Bank for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,053-7-3 together with interest thereon. The 1st defendant was a firm by name M/s. P. Hyder Hajee Sons. The 2nd defendant was the widow and defendants 3 to 7 were the children of one P. Hyder Hajee, deceased. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants 2 to 7 constituted a partnership and were carrying on business in the name of Messrs. P. Hyder Hajee Sons (1st defendant). In the course of such business, the defendants desired the plaintiff Bank to give them credit and over-draft through the 3rd defendant who was also authorised to represent them and the firm. All the defendants agreed to hold themselves jointly and severally liable for all the borrowings of the 3rd defendant. It was also stated that in pursuance of such agree...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »