Kerala Court October 1959 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.
District Collector, Kozhikode and ors. Vs. Kerala Varma Kovil Thampura ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker199
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J. 1. C. M. P. 2393 of 1959 is a petition by the Government Pleader for the transfer of three suits, O. S. 17 o 1959 pending in the Ernakulam Munsiff's Court, O. S. 67 of 1959 pending in the Haripad Munsiff's Court, and O. S. 101 of 1959 pending in the Kottayam Munsiff's Court, to the Trivandrum Munsiff's Court where a fourth suit O. S. 105 of 1957 is pending. These four suits were instituted by four different plaintiffs, to enforce the claim made by each of them, for reward under Section 13 of the Pensions Act, 23 of 1871, alleging that each has proved to the satisfaction of the appropriate Government, that two specified parties had been fraudulently and unduly receiving pension to which they were not entitled. The State of Kerala is a common defendant in all the suits and in the suits in the Ernakulam. Haripad and Kottayam Munsiff's Courts, the Union of India and the District Collector, Kozhikode are also parties. The recipients of the pension are defendants 2 an...
K. Damodaran Vs. Samuel Aaron
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker201
ORDERVaidialingam, J.1. Both these Civil Revision Petitions filed by the defendant and plaintiff respectively in O. S. 80/1955, Subordinate Judge's Court, Telli-cherry, arise out of an order passed by that court in I. A. 1312/1959 dated 17-9-1959. The said ap-plication was filed by the plaintiff under Order 11, Rules 12, 14 and 15 of the C.P.C., for permission to inspect the documents produced in the case by the defendant. The said application was opposed by the defendant. The learned Judge, overruling the objections of the defendant, gave permission to the plaintiff to inspect the accounts for the period from 11-4-1949 till 11-L1-1953. The discussion in the judgment shows that the learned Judge intended to permit the plaintiff to inspect documents from 1-4-49. But in the concluding portion of the order, the learned Judge has stated that the period of inspec-tion will be from 1-4-50 till 11-11-53. Evidently, the date 1-4-50 given therein is a mistake for 1-4-49. But anyhow I will make ...
Mammunhi Vs. Kunhibi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Ker147
M.S. Menon, J. 1. The defendant in O. S. No. 46 of 1952 of the court of the District Munsiff of Kasaragod is the appellant before us. The suit was for the recovery of possession of the item of property described in tile Schedule to the plaint including the house thereon with mesne profits at Rs. 150/- per year from the date of the plaint till the date of recovery. 2. Both the trial court and the District Judge of South Kanara in the appeal from the judgment of the trial court-- A. S. No. 153 of 1954-- have held that the land belongs to the plaintiff, and that she is entitled to recover the same with mesne profits at Rs. 75/- per year. There is nothing on record toshow that these conclusions are in any way incorrect. 3. The courts below have also come to the conclusion--we think quite correctly--that the house on the property was constructed by the defendant with his own funds. The question for determination is whether he has the right to remove the materials of the house in case the pl...
Narayanan Vs. Kunju and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker218
ORDERT.K. Joseph, J.1. The petitioner in this revision petition complained to the Police that accused 1 to 5 and fifteen others committed theft of livestock, agricultural produce and implements worth Rs. 873/- from the land in his possession and the huts thereon. The police sent up a report that the allegations were false. Thereupon the petitioner preferred a complaint before the Second Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. As there was undue delay in the disposal of the case, the District Magistrate Quilon, transferred the case to his file and tried it. Holding that the complaint was false and vexatious, he discharged the accused and ordered the complainant to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay compensation to the four surviving accused. The complainant who was present in court when the judgment was delivered stated that the complaint was true and that the witnesses had turned hostile as he had evicted them from the property during the trial of the case. The District Magistrat...
P.S. Narayana Iyer Vs. Subramonia Iyer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-07-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker167
ORDERT.K. Joseph, J. 1. P.W. 1 in C. C. No. 4 of 1957 on the file of the Special Second Class Magistrate, Ponnani has preferred this criminal revision petition against the acquittal of the accused who were tried for offences under Sections 447 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. After the examination of P. W. 1 the trial Magistrate submitted the case to the District Magistrate with a report that as an offence under Section 506(2) was also disclosed the case should he transferred to the file of a Magistrate competent to try the case. The District Magistrate sent the case back to the trial Magistrate with a direction that he should proceed with the examination of the witnesses for the prosecution and that if he were of the opinion that a case triable only by a First Class Magistrate was made out, he should then submit the case to the District Magistrate under Section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After receipt of the records the trial Magistrate tried the case and found that th...
Manni and ors. Vs. Paru and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-01-1959
Reported in: AIR1962Ker195
M.S. Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal by defendants 2 to 6 and 8 in O. S. No. 6 of 1952 of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to benefit under the will Ext. Al dated 11-10-1949. 2. The testator was one Kunker who died on 5-9-1951. He had eight children, two sons (the deceased Pokkan and the 1st defendant) and six daughters (defendants 2 to 7). By his will he allotted properties to his eight children and the 8th defendant, a nephew of his and the husband of the 3rd defendant. 3. Pokkan committed suicide on 5-9-1951. The 1st plaintiff is his widow and the remaining plaintiffs, plaintiffs 2 to 4 are their children. 4. The lower court held: 'In the result the suit is decreed, declaring the rights of the plaintiffs to the share of Pokkan, allotted to him under the will evidenced by Exhibit A1.'It is the correctness of this conclusion that is challenged before us. 5. According to the defendan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›