Kerala Court August 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.
Vishnu Bhatta Subraya Bhatta Vs. Domakkee and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker326
K.T. Koshi, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage bond, and the only question raised in the appeal is whether or not the suit was instituted within twelve years from the date on which the money sued for became due.2. The bond bears the date 27-3-1909 and was in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the two plaintiffs in the suit and defendants 7 to 9. The mortgagor and the mortgagee belonged to Kasaragod Taluk and the bond is in Kanarese. The principal amount borrowed was Rs. 7800/-. Interest for the loan was fixed at Rs. 456-4-9 per year to be paid by the 30th Phalguna of every year beginning from Saumya (1909-1910). The mortgage money was repayable after twenty years and within thirty years.Some time after the execution of the mortgage, the mortgagor sold the equity of redemption over the mortgaged properties to a stranger and the latter in his turn sold the same to four persons, of whom defendant 1 was one, and his uncle, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants ...
Janaki Amma Vs. Venkitasubba Iyer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker311
Kumara Pillai, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for money due under four simple mortgages or hypothecation bonds. There were ten items of properties in the plaint schedule, and the suit has been decreed as regards all of them. The appeal relates only to plaint schedule item 1, and the question raised by the appellant, defendant 19, who claims the said item by title paramount, is whether it is liable at all for the plaint claim. Defendants 4 to 27 were impleaded in the suit on the allegation that they were living in the plaint properties and it was therefore necessary to have them on the party array in order to enable the plaintiff to get an effective decree.2. According to the plaint allegations, plaint schedule items 1 to 10 were the ancestral properties of two brothers, Subramonia Pillai and Ponnuswami Pillai, both of whom are now dead. Ponnuswami Pillai was the elder of the two brothers and defendant 3 is his son. Defendants 1 and 2 are the widow and son of Subramonia Pillai. T...
Divakaran Nair Vs. State of Travancore-cochin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker283; (1958)IILLJ77Ker
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been Bled on behalf individually, of two Service Associations of Government servants against the same Respondent State, and seek to canvass the validity of a directive issued in the form of a Circular, forbidding both the Associations from retaining a non-official, who happened to be the same, as their President. In view of the importance of the question involved, they were referred by one of us, before whom they came on in the first instance, to a Division Bench. The petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this single judgment.2. Of these petitions O. P. 80 is filed by the Secretary of the Government School Teachers' Federation which was formed on 14-1-1955. The Federation is composed of three constituent units. Primary School Teachers' Association, Secondary School Teachers' Association and Graduate Teachers' Association, each of which elect 25 representatives who together const...
Kerala Arecanut Co. Vs. State of Travancore-cochin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker280; [1957]8STC817(Ker)
M.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner, the Kerala Arecanut Company,Kokala, Trichur, is a registered firm consisting of three partners. The 1st respondent is the State of Travancore-Cochin, and the 2nd, the Sales Tax Officer, First Circle, Trichur.2. Article 286(2) of the Constitution as it stood before the Sixth Amendment (excluding the proviso) read as follows:'Except in so far as Parliament may by law otherwise provide, no law of a State shall impose, or authorise the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of any goods where such sale or purchase takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce'and the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the transactions with which we are concerned took place, 'in the course of inter-State trade or commerce' and are as a result exempt from taxation under the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125.3. The assessment order impugned is Ext. C, an order of the 2nd respondent dated 24-11-1955. The order is not challenged o...
Krishnan Vs. Divisional Engineer of Telegraphs
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-1957
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ82Ker
M.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner was a temporary telephone operator attached to the Telephone Exchange at Cochin. His services were terminated by Ex. B, a memorandum dated 27 September 1956, which reads as follows:You are hereby informed that your services are not required from the afternoon of 30 September 1956. In lieu of one month's notice required to be served on you under rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1949, you will be paid one month's pay and allowances, i.e., for the month October 1956. It will be disbursed to you on 1 October 1956 along with your pay and allowances, for the month of September.2. It is agreed that the petitioner's employment is governed by the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1949. Rule 5 of the said rules is in the following terras:(a) The service of a temporary Government servant who is not in quasi-permanent service shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the Governmen...
Kasim Rowther Vs. Pampady Panchayat and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker118
ORDERM.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner challenges the right of the Pampadi Panchayat (1st respondent) to demand profession tax from him on the ground that the bye-laws in that behalf (bye-law Nos. 10 to 23) have not been properly framed and should be considered as of no effect. The periods in respect of which the demands are impugned in this petition are the first and second half years of 1955-56 and the first half year of 1956-57.2. The bye-laws were notified in the Travan-core-Cochin Government Gazette dated the 5th January 1954. The opening words of the notification are:'In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 102 of the Panchayat Act II of 1950 and Rule 138 of the Panchayat Rules 1951, the bye-laws of the following panchayats are approved and notified by the Director, the same having been duly passed by the Panchayats concerned after observing all the formalities as contemplated in Rule 118 of the Panchayat Rules, 1951''.37 Panchayats are mentioned in the notification and t...
Thommen Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker74; 1958CriLJ509
Sankaran, J.1. The accused in sessions Case No. 21/1956 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge at Kottayam was tried for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the acts attributed to the accused have been proved by the prosecution, but that such acts which culminated in the death of the victim Augusty Varkey alias Kunjootty, did not constitute the offence of murder. It was further found that the accused was acting in the exercise of his private defence and that in inflicting the several stabs on Kunjootty the accused had exceeded the right of private defence.Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the accused was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and convicted him under the First Part of Section 304 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Against such conviction and sentence the accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No....
S. Kumaraswamy Vs. the South Travancore Electric Workers' Union, by th ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker286; (1958)IILLJ72Ker
K.T. Koshi, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the order of M. S. Menon, J., dated 22-2-1956 in O. P. No. 266 of 1955 dismissing the appellant's application for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate wit or direction concerning the award dated 27-12-1951 of the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum, the award dated 28-8-1954 passed on appeal therefrom by the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, III Branch and the demand notice dated 28-9-1955 issued to the appellant by the Tahsildar, Agasteeswaram Taluk at Nagercoil.The appellant before us who was the petitioner before the learned Judge was formerly the licencee of the Nagercoil Electric Supply Corporation and while the said concern was under his management fourteen workmen happened to be retrenched. As a result of that a strike was organised by the workmen and consequent on it fourteen others happened to be dismissed.The cause of the retrenched and the dismissed workmen was taken up by the South Travancore Electric Workers' Union and eventuall...
Muhammad Pathummal Kadija Beevi Vs. Maria Ummal Mohammad Pathumal and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker264
T.K. Joseph, J.1. This is 8 plaintiff's appeal, from the decree dismissing a suit for partition and recovery of her share in the properties of her father Kutti-kannu Mytheen Kannu who died on 7-10-1124. The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 are the children of Mytheen Kannu and his widow the 1st defendant. They had four daughters and two sons.defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff's case was that she was entitled to a 7/64th snare in the properties.Defendants 2 and 3 resisted the suit alleging that the properties in schedule A were gifted to them by their father under Ext. A dated 2-7-1123 and that the plaintiff and other heirs of their father were not entitled to claim any share in the same. Items Nos. 10 and 11 in schedule A had been mortgaged with possession by Mytheen Kannu to the plaintiff at the time of her marriage and these items were in the plaintiff's possession at the time of the gift. According to defendants 2 and 3 all the other immoveable properties came into their possession un...
Raman Nambiar Vs. Krishnan Nambiar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker265
Kumara Pillai, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree dismissing a suit for partition. The parties are governed by the Cochin Marumakkathayam Act, XXXIII of 1113. According to the plaintiffs, there are three branches in their tarwad. One branch consists of plaintiffs 1 to 8, another of defendants 1 to 8, and the third defendants 9 to 18. Plaintiffs prayed for partition by metes and bounds and recovery of possession of 8/26 shares in the plaint properties which they claimed were their tarwad properties.The suit was contested principally by defendants 1 to 8, and their main contention was that there was no undivided tarwad consisting of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 18 as alleged in the plaint. According to them, the original tarwad had become divided into three separate branches having no community of interest with each other under the partition deed. Ext. A, executed in 1093, and so, the plaintiffs' suit was not maintainable. Generally speaking, the branch of defendants 9 to 18 s...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »