Kerala Court September 1960 Judgments
Appu Vs. Mannadiar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker298
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the order o remand passed by the learned District Judge after recording his opinion on the question of res judicata already decided by the trial court. As I am of the opinion that this order of remand is justified, I do not think it necessary or desirable to express any opinion on the merits, which will have to be gone into by the trial court.2. It is enough to state that the suit was for recovery of possession on the basis of title of Maruthakkavu Temple paramba of an extent of about 99 cents.3. The suit was contested On the ground that the defendant has obtained an oral lease about 25 years back from a karnavan of the plaintiff's tarward on condition of his paying an annual rent of Re. 1/-and this is to be utilised by the defendant for lighting a lamp in front of the said temple. He also pleaded that the suit itself is barred by res judicata on the ground that in respect of an acquisition proceeding evidenced by Ext B...
Tag this Judgment!Ummathu Vs. Ali Alias Bava Haji
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker292
ORDERM.A. Ansari, C.J. 1. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs, and had claimed to recover Rs. 420/-, being the excess amount, that had been deposited in O. S. 269/51, in order to get stayed the proceedings for eviction, with arrears of rent claimed to be due from 1124. Several defences had been taken; one, about the suit being not maintainable, the next, about it being barred by limitation, and the third about the landlord's having appropriated the balance towards what was due to them on account of arrears of rent. The Court has held the suit to be maintainable, the claim not to be barred by limitation, and had decreed Rs. 91/-, after having held respondents entitled to appropriate sums towards what was flue. The short point taken in the revision petition is that the rent-note having stated the money value of what was payable as rent, in kind, larger sums cannot be appropriated as the arrears in money of such rent. For deciding the argument, part of the document is important, a...
Tag this Judgment!Sambhu Vaidyan and anr. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1960
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ476Ker
Velu Pillai, J.1. The two petitioners and their father's brother, the respondent 4 were members of a firm which was doing business, under the name and style 'Swarajya Pharmacy.' The respondent 4 instituted a suit O.S. No. 225 of 1956 for the dissolution of the partnership and succeeded in obtaining a preliminary decree on 27 March 1957. The first petitioner moved the Court which passed the decree on 1 March 1958, for permission to terminate the services of the employees of the firm; this motion was not opposed, the Court granted permission and their services were dispensed with on 6 March 1958. On a petition which some of the employees had made, it was ordered on 7 March 1958, that the condition of the service of the employees will be governed by the agreement between the employees and the management and the labour laws prevailing in the State.... The liability of the management for the amount due to them and their future conditions of service will be considered later.2. On a motion ma...
Tag this Judgment!Govindan Vijayan Vs. Karambi Parvathy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker207
ORDERM. Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an application to condone the delay in the filing of the Second Appeal.2. The Superintendent of the Filing Section of this court has made a note that appeal would be within time only if the day on which the copy of the decree was notified to be taken by the party is excluded in computing the period of limitation for the appeal, but not otherwise. In view of this note, the learned counsel for the appellant has filed this application by way of abundant caution with prayer to condone the delay, if any, in the institution of this Second Appeal.3. I am of the view that the day notified for appearance of the party to take delivery of the copy of the decree has to be excluded in computing the period of limitation for his filing the appeal from that decree. It must, be counted as part of the time requisite for his obtaining the copy of the decree within the meaning of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act.4. The matter is also covered by several precedents. In...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Bhatta Vs. Ananta Bhatta
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker309
ORDERM. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. This is an application by the plaintiff, who had been allowed to institute the suit in forma pauperis, for further leave to appeal as pauper, from the decree dismissing his suit. Notice on this application was ordered by a learned Judge of this court on 23-6-1959; and the respondent and the Government Pleader have entered appearance in response thereto. The question now is whether, at this stage, the respondent is to be allowed to contend that the decree is not contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law and is not otherwise erroneous or unjust and therefore the application should be refused. 2. Order 44, Rule 1, C. P. C. provides : '(1) Any person, entitled to prefer an appeal who is unable to pay the fee required for the memorandum of appeal, may present an application accompanied by a memorandum of appeal, and may be allowed to appeal as a pauper, subject in all matters, including the presentation of such application, to the provisions relat...
Tag this Judgment!V. Srinivasa Naicken Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Palai.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-19-1960
Reported in: [1963]47ITR122(Ker)
The petitioner was assessed to agricultural income-tax on October 5, 1958, for the assessment year 1955-1956, corresponding to the accounting year 1129 M. E. On November 27, 1958, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Palai, issued exhibit P-1, notice, to the petitioner, intimating him that he proposed to reassess his income for the accounting years 1129, 1130 and 1131 M. E. and inviting objections, if any, to be filed within 35 days of the receipt of the notice. This was followed by another notice, exhibit P-2, dated January 30, 1959, which stated that the assessments made on the petitioner for the assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58 will be reopened and fresh assessments made under section 35 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, which may be referred to briefly as the 'Act'. The petitioner took no action pursuant to the notice. The Agricultural Income-tax Office made a reassessment by order, exhibit P-3, on March 10, 1959. A notice of demand, exhibit P-4, was then issue...
Tag this Judgment!Raghavan Nair Vs. Lekshmikutty Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker193
M.S. Menon, J.1. This is an appeal by the petitioner in O. P. No. 9 of 1958 of die court of the District Judge of 'Palghat. The petition was dismissed on the preliminary ground that it was not maintainable in view of the dismissal of an earlier petition filed by the petitioner, O. P. No. 9 of 1957.2. Ext. B-l is the certified copy of that petition and Ext. B-2 is the order thereon. They make it clear that O. P. No. 9 of 1957 was a petition for the appointment of the petitioner as the guardian of his minor son under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The present petition is essentially one for obtaining the custody of the boy under Section 25 of that Act. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case a remand is 'ordered, his client will move for an amendment of the petition and place the matter beyond all controversy.3. Section 25 reads as follows :'(1) If a ward leaves or is removed) from the custody of a guardian of his person, the court, if it is of opinion that it ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhame Amma Vs. Venkappa Bhatta and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker178
ORDERM. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. The order sought to be revised in this case is one granting a stay of delivery in execution of a Small Cause decree which culminated in a court sale of the suit property in favour of the 1st respondent. When the 1st respondent applied for deliveryof possession in pursuance of his court-purchase, the petitioner offered resistance; whereupon the 1st respondent applied for removal of the resistance. The executing court by an order dated 8-8-1958 repelled the resistance and ordered delivery. Soon thereafter the petitioner filed O. S. No. 478 of 1958 to establish his rights to the present possession of the property and applied for a stay of the delivery proceedings in the Small Cause suit. The court below, on taking some evidence by the issue of a commission for local inspection to ascertain whether the House Number of the petitioner seen in the records produced by him relates to the house in the suit property, came to the conclusion that there is prima facie ev...
Tag this Judgment!P.J. Joseph Vs. Superintendent of Post Offices and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker197; (1961)ILLJ256Ker
Ansari, C.J.1. This writ petition seeks to vacate the order terminating the petitioner's tenure, who, till July 1, 1952, was the non-departmental branch Post Master at Erumapramattom, Erattupetta, Meenachil Taluk. By the order of the Inspector of Post Offices, Kottayam, he was temporarily removed from the service, pending inquiry into the failure to credit in the accounts the value of V. P. Articles, and criminal prosecution was also launched against him in connection with the aforesaid failures to credit the value. The First Class Magistrate, Meenachil, inquired into the complaints against him for the offence under Section 409 I.P.C., the criminal case before the aforesaid Magistrate being C.C. No. 79/53.After examining the prosecution witnesses, the Magistrate, on November 29, 1957, ordered petitioner's discharge under Sec. 253 (1), Criminal P.C., and, on April 2, 1958, the writ petitioner requested the postal authorities for re-employment. He sent a reminder, 22 days later, and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Pillai Vs. Easwara Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker258
M. Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff, whose suit for recovery of certain sums from a co-operative society has been dismissed by both the Courts below, is the appellant in this Second Appeal. It is admitted that the plaintiff was a member of the Co-operative Society. Plaintiff stated that he had advanced certain loans to the Society before he became a member of the society and that he was in the employ of the Society for over three years for Kmuneration promised, and that, on account of allthese, amounts are due to him besides what he has remitteed as share value to the Society.He has filed this suit for settlement of accounts and recovery of the amounts that may be found due from the Co-operative Society. The learned Munsiff held that since the plaintiff is a past member of the Co-operative Society the suit is barred by Section 60 of the Travancore-Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 195l. When the matter was taken in appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge upheld the Munsiff. Hence this ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »