Kerala Court October 1958 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.
N. Madhavan Unnithan Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-15-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker338
ORDERVaradaraja Iyengar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Sri N. Madhavan Unnithan who was a District Munsiff in the service of the Respondent State of Kerala. The complaint is against certain refusal by the Respondent of arrears of salary. 2. The Travancore-Cochin State as is well-known was formed on 1-7-1949. The integration of the service personnel in the two erstwhile States of Travancore and Cochin was soon after taken up and naturally took some time. This gave mo to the anomaly of differences in nay between the officers of the Travancore and Cochin branches who were dicharging the same duties. The question, as pointed out by certain officers in the Administrative Secretariat, was either to give effect to the integrated pay scales with effect from 1-7-1949 or to allow them to draw the pay which their immediate juniors were drawing. The Government chose the latter alternative and passed, orders on 13-1-1955 as regards the staff of the Administr...
Krishnaswami Iyer Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, Travancore-c ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-1958
Reported in: [1959]36ITR233(Ker)
KUMARA PILLAI, J. - This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act made by the Madras Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in compliance with the direction in the order of the High Court of Travancore-Cochin in O.P. Nos. 146, 147 and 148 of 1954. All the three original petitions were filed by the same assessee, and they related to his assessments under the Travancore Income-tax Act for the years 1122, 1123 and 1124 M.E. He was first assessed for these three years by the Income-tax Officer, Salary and Non-resident Refund Circle, Alleppey. Later, acting under section 47 of the Travancore Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to him for re-opening the three assessments, and after hearing his objections re-assessed him for considerably larger amounts in respect of all the three years by a consolidated order dated December 10, 1949. These re-assessments were taken by him in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Ernakulam, ...
P. Sadayandi Nadar and ors. Vs. Venugopala Chetty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Ker91
ORDERVaradaraja Iyengar, J.1. This is a petition for transfer of O. S, No. 45 of 1956 of the Sub-court, Oottappalam to the Sub-court, Tuticorin. The petitioners are the defendants 11 to 15 in the suit.2. The suit was for partition of the plaintiff's one-half share as against the defendants 1 to 10 who comprised the other branch of the joint Hindu family of the parties. The plaint merely averred as the reason for the suit that the plaintiff was dissatisfied with the management of his brother's sons, the defendants 1 and 2 of the B schedule immoveables and the C schedule movables belonging to the family and entrusted to them. All the B schedule items except item II, lay within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Courts of Tuticorin and Ramnad and the parties were also residents at Sattur, The suit could accordingly have been laid in either of these Sub Courts but the plaint was filed in the Sub-Court at Ottapalam though properly in view to the situation of the item 11 viz. the West Coast Match C...
St. Mariammal Roman Catholic Church Vs. Lekshmanan Nadar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-09-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker297
ORDERKumara Pillai, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order allowing a petition for setting aside an ex parte decree. The suit was filed in the Malabar year 13.24 for redemption of a mortgage. It was contested by defendants 2, 4, 11, 15. 20 and 22, but was ultimately decreed by the trial court on 3-1-1128. Against the trial court's decree defendants 20 and 22 filed an appeal in the District Court of Trivandrum and that appeal was also dismissed. After the dismissal of the appeal the plaintiff-decree-holder deposited the mortgage amount in court and applied for delivery of possession of the property. Then defendant 12 applied, on 29-3-1952 A. D., for the decree to be set aside on the ground that the summons issued in the suit had not been served on him and that he had obtained knowledge of the decree only on 27-8-1952t Defendant 12 is the brother-in-law of defendant 11 who was one of the defendants who contested the suit before the appeal.2. The summons issued to ...
George Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-09-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker294
1. These appeals arise from the decree in a suit for recovery of money. Defendants 2 to 5 are the sons of the 1st defendant and the 6th defendant is the second defendant's wife. Defendants 1 to 6 executed an overdraft agreement Ext. A dated 24-10-1947 to the plaintiff Bank for Rs. 1,25,000/-. They also executed a promissory note Ext. B on the same day as collateral security for the loan. An equitable mortgage of the immovable properties described in Schedule A appended to the plaint was also made in favour of the plaintiff, by deposit of title deeds, Ext. D-2 being the memorandum.Items Nos. 9 to 11 in Schedule 8 are described in Schedule B. These belong to defendants 2 and 6. Sometime after the commencement of the transaction, defendants 1 to 6 requested the plaintiff to release the charge over these items on receipt of Rs. 15,400/-. They offered to furnish additional security for releasing these items and the properties in the Schedule C were given as additional security. On 7-11-1947...
Krishnan Ezhuthassan Vs. Nanikutty Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-09-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker368
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. This second appeal is by the 1st defendant in a suit for declaration which has been decreed against him concurrently by the Courts below.2. The disputed property is S. No. 192 in Thengallur Village in Talappilli Taluk. It is 4 acres 98 cents in extent and schedule as A to the plaint. Schedules B, C. D, and E are various portions of the A schedule and entered for purpose of denoting the possession of different persons. Thus defendants 2, 3, and 4 were in separate possession at date of suit of the B, C, and D schedules and defendants 5 to 10 were in possession of the E schedule. These persons were claimed by the plaintiff to be tenants under him, defendants 2, 3, ana 4 having each taken Exts. D, E, and F leases all in 1121 from the plaintiff for the respective properties in their possession.The plaintiff's complaint was that his tenants above said had, in the persuasion of the 1st defendant rival title holder, acknowledged the latter recently as their landlord an...
Ouseph Lukka Vs. Ananthanarayana Iyer Ramakrishna Iyer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker233
Koshi, C.J. 1. Defendant 2 in O. S. No. 24 of 1120 on the file of the District Court of Alleppey has preferred, this appeal against the judgment and decree the learned Temporary Additional District Judge passed in the suit on 30-8-1952. The suit was on a hypothecation bond executed by defendants 1 and 2. on 24-2-1118 under which they acknowledged their indebtedness to the plaintiff for 1720 paras (Kalloorkadam measure) of paddy and charged the paddy crops in item 1 of the schedule appended thereto and also item 2 thereof. Item 1 belonged to defendant 3 and the plaintiff had taken a lease of that property from that defendant. Defendants 1 and 2 were sub-lessees of that item under the plaintiff. It is a punja land and the crops which the sub-lessees were to raise for the Meenam, harvest formed part of the subject of thc charge created by the document, the other part consisting of the entire interests defendant 1 had in item 2. Under the terms of the hypothecation bond (Ext. A) the debt w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›