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.
Sayu Mohammed Abdulla Vs. Neelakantan Krishnan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker322
Varadaraja Iyengar, J. 1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit instituted by them as vendees of immovable property against the vendor for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation as to title to the property sold and also for enforcement of a covenant of indemnity contained in the sale deed.2. The property in question which is scheduled as item 1 to the plaint is a garden land 78 cents in extent in Edava Pakuthy in Chirayinkil Taluk Along with other properties it was the subject-matter of a partition suit O. S. 705 of 1105 on the file of the Attingal Munsiff's Court, among the members of an Ezhava tarwad, who are represented in this suit as defendants 1 to 34. Defendants 29 to 34 who were the plaintiffs in that suit, claimed the property to be common tarwad property and as such available for partition while the 1st defendant set up the exclusive title of his sakha comprising the defendants 1 to 3.According to the 1st defendant it was an acquisition of Kurumpa Nac...
State of Travancore-cochIn Vs. Lekshmi Ammal Meenakshi Ammal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker309
Varadaraja Iyengar, J. 1. These two appeals arise from the judgment and decree in O. S. 69 of 1952 on the file of the District Court of Quilon and are filed respectively by the defendants 1 and 3 in the suit.2. The disputed plot is 20 cents out of a larger area of 75 cents covered by a single survey number and is scheduled as item 1 to the plaint. The whole property originally belonged to the 3rd defendant Krishnan Chettiar. Kochukunju examined in the case as D. W. 1 had a charge over this and other properties and in enforcement thereof he filed suit & obtained decree in O. S. 82 of 1111 of the Karuna-gappalli Munsiff's Court against 3rd defendant and others and in due course of execution purchased the property himself on 14-10-1119.He subsequently transferred his sale sannad rights to the plaintiff Meenakshi under Ext. A. dated 1-5-1122 and she thereafter on 2-2-1123 obtained delivery of the property under Ext. B delivery kychit by usual process in execution. Meanwhile the 3rd defenda...
Ramunni Madayan Vs. State of Madras
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker161
Sankaran, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits instituted by the karanavan and two junior members of a tarwad known as Parassini Madappurakkal in Andoor Amsom, Chirakkal Taluk. The suits are O. S. No. 3/1951 and O. S. No. 7/1953 on the file of the District Court of North Malabar, the former suit being by the karanavan of the tarwad and the latter being by the two junior members of the same tarwad. Both the suits were instituted for substantially the samerelief and accordingly they were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment by which the learned District Judge dismissed both the suits.Against the dismissal of O. 3. 3/1951, the plaintiff in that suit has preferred A. S. 588/ 1953, while the appeal A. S. 998/1953 is by the plaintiffs in O. S. 7/1952 against the dismissal of that suit. The dispute in both the suits relates to the question as to whether the Parassinikadavu Muthappan Sthanam in Andoor Amsom. Chirakkal Taluk, is a public temple as defined in the Madras H...
K.J. Thomas Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, Madras
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker6
ORDERM.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner is the Director of the Thalayar Rubber Industries Limited, North Malabar, which owns a rubber estate with an extent of 55 acres. Sub-section (1) of Section 65 of the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (omitting the two Illustrations) reads:'Any person, who derives agricultural income from a plantation not exceeding twentyacres in extent if used for growing tea, or an extent equivalent thereto if used for growing any crop other than tea, may apply to the prescribed officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lump sum at the rate or rates specified in Part II of the Schedule: Provided that the lump sum payable under this sub-section shall be calculated only on the extent of the plantation which, is in excess of five acres if used for growing tea or of an extent equivalent thereto if used for growing any crop other than tea. Explanation.--In determining the extent of a pla...
Ayyappan Govinda Pillai Vs. Narayani Amma Chellamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker98
Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an appeal by the 7th plaintiff in O. S. 101 of 1096 District Court, Alleppey against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vaikom, in execution proceedings. The dispute relates to the conflicting title to the suit property set up by the 4th defendant as purchaser of the property in execution of the decree in O. S. 1175 of 1099 District Munsiff's Court Vaikom and the 7th plaintiff as purchaser in execution of the decree in O. S. 101/1096 District Court, Alleppey. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows :--2. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4 in the suit in the District Court are members of a Marumakkathayam Tarwad known as Chittayil Thanezhathu Tarwad. According to an Udambadi of 1080, the Tarwad appears to have divided into two branches comprising of plaintiffs and the 1st and 2nd defendants known as the Thanezhathu Branch and of the defendants 3 to 5 as the Thalapally Branch. There is no dispute that the 1st defendant wa...
State of Kerala Vs. Devassy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker194; 1958CriLJ895
P.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. The State appeals against the acquittal of the accused by the Sessions judge of Trichur on appeal from his conviction by the First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy, This Court has also taken up the matter, suo motu in revision.2. On the whole we are not satisfied that there are any grounds for interference. The offences alleged against the accused were all non-cognizable. This, notwithstanding, there was a police investigation without the orders of a Magistrate, in violation of the express prohibition in Section 155(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case on a police report. The learned Sessions Judge following the principles laid down in H. N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, (S) AIR 1955 SC 196 (A) which was a case of an investigation in violation of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947), held that the illegality of the investigation did not vitiate the trial unless miscarriage of justice had been...
Sebastian Joseph Vs. Thomman Paily
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker314
Raman Nayar, J.1. These appeals are by a member of a company in liquidation, one against the dismissal of his application for the removal of the liquidator, and the other against an order sanctioning the reconsti-tution of the company.2. By an order dated 15-8-1120 made in Company Petition No. 1 of 1117, the District Judge, Anjikaimal, ordered the winding up of a company called the Gothuruthi Educational and Industrial Company Ltd., registered on 23-9-1098 under the provisions of the Cochin Companies Act 4 of 1080, and at all material times, governed by the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913.In M. P. No. 237 of 1123, the liquidator, who happened also to be the managing director of the company at the time of the winding up order, applied to the Court under S. 153 of the Companies Act for permission to convene a meeting of the members to approve a scheme for reconstituting the company and for consequential orders. This was opposed by 74 cut of the 141 members of the company and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›