Kerala Court May 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.
Shankaran Nambudiripad Vs. Parameswaran Nambudiri
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker156
Kumara Pillai, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Panchapakesa Ayyer J., of the Madras High Court in A. S. No. 66 of 1951 of that court. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 2 of 1949 of the court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam are the appellants. They are the karanavans and managers of their illoms, and they brought the said suit for a declaration that the Moonumoorthy temple in Trikkateeri amsom was not a temple coming under the definition of that term as defined in the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act (Madras Act 5 of 1947) and that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to that temple as it was founded by their ancestors for private worship by their families.Before filing the suit, they had made a reference to the Government under Section 6 of the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act as to whether the temple would come within the purview of that Act; and that reference was decided by the Government on 11-12-1948 ...
Land Acquisition Officer, Tellicherry Vs. Amsa and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-29-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker158
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. This appeal is by the Land Acquisition Officer representing the State and arises out of the judgment in a reference under Section 18 of the Act, whereby the compensation under the award was enhanced though not to the full extent claimed.2. Land acquired was situated in Panniyur amsam and desam in Chirakfial Taluk in Malabar and stood registered as unoccupied dry and measured 24 acres 95 cents. The acquisition was for the purpose of Pepper Research Station, The Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was dated 80-10-1951 and the declaration under Section 6 was published in the Gazette on .6-11-1951. The land was taken possession of under the urgency provision on 7-4-1952. The award which was dated 10-10-1952, valued the land at the rate of Rs. 250 per acre and the few maruthu and other miscellaneous trees standing thereon at Rs. 125.Adding 15 pgr cent solatium the total value came to Rs. 7,316-14-0. In their petition for reference filed on 23-11-1952 the cla...
Luka Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Ker338
G. Kumara Pillai, J. 1. In this case two matters come up for consideration. According to the appellant's counsel, the court fee payable on a memorandum of appeal 01ed against an order on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution is only Rs. 2/- under Schedule 2 of Article 6 of the Court Fees Act According to the office, it is Rs. 25/- under the rules framed by the High Court governing applications under Article 226. The Covernment Pleader appearing on behalf of the Advocate General to whom notice was issued by us supports the appellant's counsel.The provision investing the High Court with rule making power in the matter does hot authorise it to make rules for the levy of court-fee which has to be done under the provisions of the Court Fees Act. We therefore hold that the rule relied upon by the office is ultra vires and that the proper court fee payable for the appeal is only Rs. 2/-.The next matter is whether the appellant's counsel requires a fresh vakalath from the client...
State Vs. Narayani Pillai Kuttiparu Amma and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker136
Sankaran, J. 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the decree passed by the Additional District Judge at Trivandrum in Land Acquisition Reference No. 6/1951 on the file of his court. A plot of land, 84 cents in extent comprised in Survey No. 790 of Cheruvakkal Pakuthy, was acquired by the State on 1-4-1950. This property was owned in equal shares by a mother, Narayani Amma Kuttipparu Amma, and her three sons Sivasankaran Nair, Appukuttan Nair and Parameswaran Pillai. The one-fourth share of Parameswaran Pillai was purchased by Sivasankaran Nair who thus became entitled to a half share in the property. The mother Kuttippam Amma and her son Appukuttan Nair retained ownership of their respective one-fourth shares. This was the position atthe time of the land acquisition proceedings and it was made clear in the written statements filed by Kuttipparu Amma and Sivasankaran Nair before the Land Acquisition Officer. Their claim for compensation was at the rate of Rs. 60/- per cent. T...
Nani Kunjukrishnan Vs. Padmanabha Pillai Krishna Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-16-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker38
T.K. Joseph, J. 1. These appeals arise from O. S. No. 68 of 1121 of the District Court of Trivandrum which was a suit for redemption of mortgages. The properties described in the plaint schedule are Kypallivilagom comprising three plots and Alummoodu Purayidom, These originally belonged to two families, Kypilli find Attoor houses on Service Inam Tenure. The mortgages and purakkadoms sought to be redeemed arc Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F. According to the plaintiff one Mary Beemer took Kypallivilgom on mortgage from the owners in 1043 under Ext. A. This was followed by another mortgage Ext. B of the year 1053 in favour of Mary Beemer's husband Joris Beemer for Alummoodu Purayidom. Mary Beemer in whom the mortgage rights ultimately vested bequeathed the same to her original Tar-wad known as Varuvilagon under a Will which though contested has been upheld by the Court. Defendants 1 to 40 are members of Varuvilagom Tarwad consisting of 4 branches, all of which are represented in the suit. D...
Mathevi Bhargavi Vs. Ayyappan Kochan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-16-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker163
T.K. Joseph, J.1. This Second Appeal is by the first defendant and it arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage, Ext. A dated 6-10-1006. Out of the total consideration of 13300 fanams under Ext. A, a sum of 3500 fanams was reserved with the mortgagee to be paid to the mortgagor later. It was provided in the mortgage deed that the mortgagee should pay to the mortgagor interest at the rate of 101 per cent per annum on this sum till it was paid. The mortgage right vested in defendants 1 and 2 on the date of suitThere was a partition in the mortgagor's family and the plaintiff acquired under Exts. B, C and E to K the equity of redemption from the several members who got the same. According to the plaintiff, neither the principal nor interest on the sum of 3500 fanams was paid by the mortgagees and he claimed that interest on the unpaid mortgage money being in excess of the amount actually paid under the mortgage, he was entitled to redeem and obtain possession without making any pa...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›