Kerala Court November 1961 Judgments
Ramaswamy Pattamali and ors. Vs. Lakshmi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker313
Nair, J.1. The suit properties belonged to two brothers of a Hindu family, Ayya Pattamali and Paramaswaran Pattamali. Plaintiffs 1 to 7 and the 2nd defendant are the descendants of Ayya Pattamali, and defendants 3 to 5 of, the latter. Ayya Pattamali had four sons Subramonian, Krishnan, Chamu and Raman. Subramonian Pattamali had a son by name Nilacantan in whose favour the former, as the Kartha of the family, in the year 1041 M. E. granted two kanoms regarding the suit properties. Nilacantan Pattamali died in Makaram 1058, leaving behind him his widow Meenakshi Ammal and a daughter Ananthalakshmi Ammal. Disputes arose between the widow and the nephews of Nilacantan Pattamali as to the right of succession to his estate, which ultimately ended in a family settlement evidenced by Ext. F dated Makaram 6, 1059 under which Meenakshi Ammal surrendered all the properties of her late husband to his nephews, retaining with her only the suit properties to be enjoyed for her life and then to be tak...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kunhiraman Vs. V.R. Krishna Iyer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker190
M.S. Menon, Ag. C.J.1. The question referred for decision by the Division Bench hearing the Election Appeal relates to the finality of the electoral roll before an Election Tribunal. The question in -the words of the order of reference -- is whether in the-case of a person whose name appears in the electoral roll and who has exercised his vote, the Election Tribunal can go into the question whether or not who had attained the age of twenty-one on the qualifying date, and, on the finding Shat he had not. exclude his vote from the count, or whether under the scheme underlying the relevant provisions of the Constitution, of the Representation of the People Act, J.950, and of the Representation of the People Act 1951, the ques-tion of age is to be finally decided at the regis-tration so that capacity or incapacity on that account is conclusively determined by inclusion in or exclusion from the roll.2. The answer to the question depends essentially on the true scope and meaning of Article 3...
Tag this Judgment!Food Inspector, Quilon Vs. Stephen
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker163
Anna Chandy, J.1. This appeal under Section 417(3) by the complainant is against an order of acquittal.2 The complainant is the Food Inspector of the Quilon Municipality. The charge against the accused was for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 37 of 1954. The complainant's case was that the second accused in the case sold to him adulterated milk which belonged to the first accused and thus both the accused had committed the offence. The second accused was discharged on the first day of hearing on the mistaken impression that servant is not liable and the first accused subsequently acquitted on the ground that notice under Section 11 of the Act has not been served on him. No evidence was recorded. The acquittal of the first accused alone is challenged in this appeal.3. Sree Eradi contends on behalf of the appellant that the scope of Section 11(1)(a) has been misunderstood by the court. According to the learned counsel the notice requi...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Markose
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker78b
Govinda Menon, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State challenging the legality of the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Mavelikara in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1958. The accused one Dr. Markose was charged for giving false information to the police, offence punishable under Sections 201 and 203 read with Section 114, I. P. C.2. The case against the accused was that with the intention of screening his son Sunny from punishment for the offence of murder he gave false information to the police in respect of the occurrence and instigated his servants Pws. 2 and 5 likewise to give false information in a manner calculated to induce the police to believe that Sunny's wife Ammal, committed suicide by shooting herself and that it was not a case of murder.3. Ext. P 30 is the case diary statement of the accused taken by Pw. 16 the Circle Inspector of Police and Ext. P. 37 is the statement given by the accused before the Deputy Superintendent of Police Pw. 17. The t...
Tag this Judgment!Mathulla Mathulla Vs. Thomas George and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker320
Joseph, J.1. This appeal is from the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Mavelikara, in Arbitration Petition No. 1 of 1956 of that court. The second counter petitioner in the court below is the appellant.2. There were disputes between the appellant and the first respondent, who was the petitioner in the court below, regarding settlement of accounts of two chitties conducted by the appellant and the deceased father of the 1st respondent. The case of the first respondent was that the dispute was referred for decision to the second respondent, the first counterpetitioner in the court below, and that the latter gave an Award (Ex. P-2) on 16-6-1956. The first respondent, made an application under section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act and prayed for a decree in terms of the Award. The appellant objected mainly on two grounds, namely, that there was no submission to the second respondent and that the award was vitiated by the arbitrators' misconduct. These objections were overr...
Tag this Judgment!Ummini Padmanabhan of Ganapathiyamkottu Vadakkumkara Puthen Veedu Vs. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Ker51
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J. 1. The Civil Revision Petition raises a short question of law regarding the jurisdiction, of the lower courtto have entertained the suit itself. Two suits betweenthe same parties, one an Original Suit by the petitionerbefore me as plaintiff and the other a Small Cause Suitby the respondents before me against the petitioner asdefendant, were filed before the lower court. The petitioner's suit was on the original side, whereas the suitagainst him, which has given rise to the Civil RevisionPetition, was on the small cause side, of the same court.On 6th June 1958, the petitioner before me applied forjoint trial of the suits, which the respondents objected to.Notwithstanding the objection, the suits were finally triedtogether by the learned Munsiff, who recorded all theevidence in the original suit and treated that as evidencein the small cause suit as well. After trial the originalsuit by the petitioner was dismissed and the small causesuit against him was decreed in...
Tag this Judgment!Varkey Mathai and ors. Vs. Oommen Oommen and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Ker148
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The Appellant herein is the plaintiff in a suit for refund of price paid for a void Court sale in his favour.2. The suit property belonged to Narayana Panicker, who mortgaged it with possession to Kurien Isaac and subsequently hypothecated the equity of redemption to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant sued on the hypothecation, as O. S. No. 308 of 1109 on the file of the Munsif, Thiru-vella, obtained decree thereon, took out execution, and purchased the suit property in Court auction on Dhanu 4, 1113, (Vide the sale certificate Ext. C) and also got symbolical delivery of the property. Subsequently he sold his rights as per Ext. D to Issac Sosarnma, who, by that time, had succeeded to the mortgage on the property.Subsequent to the aforesaid court-sale, the equity of redemption was again sold in execution of O. S. No. an of 1109 on the file of the same Court on Meenom, 12, 1121 and the sale was confirmed on Medom 30, 1121. (Vide the sale certi-ficate Ext. F). The de...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Palai Central Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker210; [1962]32CompCas1008(Ker)
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. The Palai Central Bank Limited (in liquidation) stopped business on the evening of the 8th August 1960 on the appointment of a provisional Liquidator. Before that, the various offices of the bank had, in the ordinary course, is sued demand drafts, most of them on other offices of the bank, but a few on other bankst with whom it had agency arrangements. These applications are by the holders of such drafts who were unable to present them and obtain payment before the bank closed down and who therefore submitted proofs to the liquidator claiming payment in full on the ground that the bank was only an agency employed by them for the transmission of money from one place to another and payable at the other end to their nominee or his order. Therefore, their relationship with the bank was not that of an ordinary debtor and creditor, but something more; and the bank held the money paid by them for obtaining the draft in a fiduciary capacity. The liquidator however held t...
Tag this Judgment!Official Receiver, Malabar Vs. Velayudhan Pillai and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-02-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Ker52
M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. This appeal is by an Official Receiver.2. O. S. No. 467 of 1948 on the file of the City Civil Court of Madras was a suit for money. The decree therein was transferred to the Munsif's Court, Palghat, for execution. The latter Court attached a lorry belonging to the judgment-debtor and entrusted the same with sureties on 8-10-1949 who executed a bond for its production whenever called upon and in default to deposit in Court Rs. 5,000/- as the value of the lorry. The judgment-debtor having been adjudicated insolvent in I. A. 18 of 1949 in the Sub-Court, Palghat, the Official Receiver made an application to the executing court under Section 52 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, for delivery of the lorry to him. That, however, came to be rejected by the Court on 23-10-1953. On 17-11-1953 the decree-holder in O. S. No. 467 of 1948 certified that he had been paid the decree amount by one of the sureties of the judgment-debtor and therefore satisfaction might be entered ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›