Kerala Court August 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.
Noor Muhammed Abdul Samad Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker46; 1959CriLJ187
K.T. Koshi, C.J.1. The Criminal Appeal and the Referred Trial arise out of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Trivandrum in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1958 on the file of his court. Of the three persons who were tried before the learned Judge in that case, two of them, accused 1 and accused 2, stood individually charged for committing murder and for causing disappearance of evidence of murder by secretly burying the dead body, offences punishable respectively under Sections 302 and 201, Penal Code.Alternatively they were charged with the commission of these offences read with Section 34, Penal Code. Accused 3 stood charged with abetment of murder and alternatively he was sought to be made liable for murder constructively under Section 34. There was also a charge against him under Section 201 and a further alternative charge under that section read with Section 34. Accused 3 was found not guilty of any of the charges arraigned against him and ho was accordingly acquitted. The le...
Gopalakrishna Panicker Vs. Thirunakkara Devaswom
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker202
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. The second defendant appeals against the decree of the learned Second Additional District Judge of Kottayam awarding damages to the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 2,205/- and proportionate costs.2. First defendant is the wife cf the second defendant the appellant. The plaintiff and the defendants are adjoining property owners, the defendants' property being immediately on the north of that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff constructed a wall on their property on their northern boundary separating their compound from that of the defendants. The defendants, according to the plaintiff, quarried the stones from their property which resulted in the deprivation of the lateral support to the plaintiff's compound wall.As a result of the action of the defendants, the northern wall and the kitchen buildings belonging to the plaintiff, have developed very serious cracks and are in danger of falling down at any moment. The defendants are liable in law for the damages EO caused t...
Liptons Ltd. Vs. Municipal Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-1958
Reported in: [1959]10STC459(Ker)
C.A. Vaidyalingam, J.1. O.P. 163 of 1953 and S.T.R. 1 of 1954 relate to the liability of the petitioners, Lipton & Company, Ltd., to be assessed to sales tax on certain transactions for the assessment year 1123 which is the same as the accounting period, being the year ended 15th August, 1948.2. O.P. 133 of 1955 is again by the same Lipton & Company Ltd., disputing their liability to be assessed to sales tax on some transactions for the assessment year 1952-53.3. As the questions arising in O.P. 133 of 1955 are slightly different from those arising in O.P. 163 of 1953 and S. T. R. 1 of 1954, we would consider O.P. 133 of 1955 after giving our decision in O. P. 163 of 1953 and the connected S. T. R. 1 of 1954.4. By order dated 6th August, 1952, the Municipal Sales Tax Officer, Ernakulam, the first respondent in O.P. 163 of 1953 re-assesSed the petitioners, Liptons Ltd., for year of assessment 1123. It is seen from the said order that a final assessment was made on 21st June, 1949, on th...
Ukkayummakutty Umma Vs. Choiyi Choyikutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker26
M.S. Menon, J.1. The respondents filed a petition for the fixation of fair rent in respect of R. S. Nos. 119/1, 119/2, 121/1 and 121/2 of Vazhur Amsom in the Emad Taluk before the Rent Court at Manjeri (R. C. No. 364/94-55). The petitioner before us contended before the Rent Court that Ext. B1 which is styled a panaya kychit does not spell a tenancy, that the respondents were not tenants within the meaning of that expression as defined in the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, and that the case should be dismissed on that ground. The Rent Court repelled her contention and fixed a sum of Rs. 60/- as the fair rent payable from the agricultural year 1954-55 as against the liability of Rs. 185/- specified in Ext. B.2. The petitioner applied to the Subordinate Judge of South Malbar, Kozhikode, but without success. The two points considered by the Subordinate Judge in his judgment are: (1) Whether the respondents were in possession of the property as mortgagees or as tenants, and (2) Whether the fai...
Chathan Kunjukunju Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker197; 1959CriLJ716
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. This appeal is by the accused in S. C. 63 of 1936 on the file of the Quilon Sessions Court, against his conviction under Section 365, I. P. C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years.2. Nandini Amma, the girl in question belongs to the Nair Community and was living with her father P. W. 1 and mother P. W. 6 in their house in Soornad Village. The accused Chathan Kunjukunju is a Pulaya aged about 26 and living in the same village, about a mile away. He had married in his community and had an issue by the marriage. His business consisted of selling song books and he knew how to sing. His uncle was residing in the house adjoining that of P. W. 1 and this apparently had given him opportunity to get acquainted with P. W. 5.According to the Prosecution on the night of 13-10-1955 corresponding to 27-2-1131 at about 10 p. m., P. W. 5 got out of the house to answer calls of nature and 3ien the accused and his brother Kumaran together caught hold of her and b...
Paru Karthiyayani Vs. Parameswara Panicker
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker178
T.K. Joseph, J. 1. This appeal arises from a suit for redemption of a mortgage. Item No. 1 in the plaint schedule and other immoveable properties were mortgaged with possession by the plaintiffs' tarwad to Defendants 1 and 2 under Ext. B dated 16-1-1086. Defendants 3 and 4 took an assignment of the mortgage and by a deed of dissolution of partnership executed by them, the said right became vested in the 3rd defendant. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 obtained the equity of redemption under two partition deeds of 1104 and 1113. They sold the equity of redemption to the 3rd plaintiff and a decree was prayed for in his favour.2. Defendants 3 and 4 who were bound to pay the land tax on the mortgaged property are alleged to have committed default in payment of the same with the object of acquiring the equity of redemption by purchase in revenue sale. The default actually resulted in the sale of 40 cents in item No. 1 in revenue auction and though the ostensible purchaser was a stranger, the purchase was ...
Kottayam Orient Bank Ltd. Vs. Moosa Rawther
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker402
ORDERVaradaraja Iyengar, J. 1. This revision is by the plaintiff against an order of the court below refusing his application to say the execution of a decree in Order Section 226 of 1950 obtained against him by the respondent-defendant and assigned by the defendant in favour of a stranger pending the suit. The court below rejected the application on the ground that Order 21, Rule 29 under which the application was made provided only for stay as against the defendant and not as against his assignee who was not on the party array.2. Learned counsel says that the equity in plaintiff's favour under Order 21, Rule 29 was generated at the moment the suit was instituted against the defendant decree-holder and thus the assignee from the defendant took his assignment, if at all, subject only to that equity. I think this contention is entitled to succeed. In Gurushantappa v. Nagappa, AIR 1938 Bom 253, the question arose in similar circumstances and the assignee pleaded immunity on the ground of...
Lakshmanan Vs. Kamal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker67
Kumara Pillai, J.1. These five civil miscellaneous appeals, which arise out of five applications for re-delivery madeunder Order 21, Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the execution proceedings in O.S. No. 65 of 1943 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry first came before us on a reference on certain questions of law made by a learned Judge of the High Court of Madras.Four questions were referred by him to the Full Bench, but, after hearing both sides, we considered that a decision on the last of those questions alone was sufficient for the disposal of four of the civil miscellaneous appeals and mat, as a remand was necessary in the fifth to ascertain relevant facts, the other questions need be decided only if the findings of the lower Court after the remand required a decision on those questions also for its disposal. Accordingly the learned Chief Justice, who also is a member of this Full Bench, ordered the appeals to be posted again before us for hearing the e...
Augustine Vs. Port of Cochin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ153Ker
ORDERN. Varadaraja Ayyangar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Raphael Augustine, an employee in the dry dock of the Cochin port questioning an order of suspension passed against him by the respondent, the Mechanical Superintendent of the port.2. Petitioner is a first-class fitter in the dry dock under charge of the respondent. On 2 August 1956, himself and certain co-employees were asked to report for duty on the dredger 'Lady Wellingdon' on Sunday, 5 August following. Petitioner and some few did not turn up for work. Petitioner failed also to submit explanation on being called on. He was then asked to show cause why action should not be taken against him under the standing order No. 18 (C)(5) forinsubordination or disobedience, whether alone or in combination with others to any lawful and reasonable orders of a superior.Vide Ex. I notice, dated 14 August 1956. In due course an enquiry was held on 23,24 and 25 August 1956 in the office of the respondent....
Vydyan Mathew Oommummen Vs. Kunjukoshy Kochumathen Vydyan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker81
M.S. Menon, J.1. The 3rd defendant in O. S. No. 369 of 1094 of the Court of the District Munsiff, Karunagapally, is the appellant in this second appeal. He challenges the correctness of the decision of the Courts below to the effect that the execution petition dated 28-10-1121 is not barred by limitation in view of Section 48(2)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure:'Nothing in this section shall be deemed.......(a) to preclude the Court from ordering the execution of a decree upon an application presented after the expiration of the said term of twelve years, where the judgment-debtor has by fraud or force, prevented the execution of the decree at some time within twelve years immediately before the date of the application.''2. The 3rd defendant raised a plea of discharge by a petition dated 26-10-1102. The petition was dismissed by the Munsiff's Court on 2-1-1104. Against the order of dismissal there was an appeal and also a second appeal. The second appeal was dismissed on 3-6-1106,3. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »