Kerala Court May 1962 Judgments
Ekkara Parambil Moideen Koya Haji and ors. Vs. the Special Tahsildar f ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker194
Vinda Menon, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode in L.A. O. P. Nos. 14 and 15 of 1957. Those petitions relate to enhanced compensation for the acquisition of T. S. Nos. 92/3 and 92/5 of the Calicut Municipality. In both these cases notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act were received by the appellants calling upon them to put in written statements of their claims on 27-8-1956. On that day admittedly no written statement was filed and the case of the appellants is that when they appeared their statements regarding their claims were recorded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The acquisition officer passed the award and later, on objection raised by the appellants, reference was made to the Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode.2. In both the cases a preliminary issue was tried viz., whether the claim was barred under Section 25(2) of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the appellants had omitted wit...
Tag this Judgment!Velayudhan Pillai Thankappan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker85; 1963CriLJ290
Govinda Menon, J. 1. The petitioner before us was put up before the Sub-Magistrate of Attingal for an alleged offence under section 314, I. P. C. There were no witnesses to the actual commission of the offence and the prosecution rested their case entirely on circumstantial evidence. No witnesses were, therefore, examined and the learned Magistrate after following the procedure laid down under Section 207-A, Cr. P. C. came to the conclusion that the accused should be committed for trial and passed an order of commitment, The petitioner has come up to this court to quash the order of commitment. 2. The first ground urged is that the commitment without taking evidence is illegal or at any rate the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion properly in not examining any witnesses. Under clause (4) to Section 207-A, Cr. P. C., the examination of witnesses is made obligatory only in cases where there are witnesses to the actual commission of the offence. In such a case the prosecution may ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Nair Padmanabhan and ors. Vs. Raman Nilakanta Kurup
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker216
S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The question for decision in this second appeal by Additional decree-holders 3 and 4 is, whether the execution petition dated June 27, 1956, is within time or not. The first petition for execution of the decree was made on the 4th January, 1943, and was dismissed on the 6th September, 1944. The next petition for execution was made on the 15th November 1949. On objection being taken by the 19th defendant, by an order dated the 25th September, 1950, the execution Court called upon the decree-holder to amend the execution petition by computing the amount to be realised at the computation rate for paddy as found. The execution petition was posted for amendment on the 14th October, 1950, and was ultimately dismissed for non-compliance, on the 30th October 1950. The decree-holder preferred an appeal against the order of the 25th September, 1950, within time, though after the dismissal of the execution petition. This appeal was dismissed. On Second Appeal, however, the T...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. Dharmadas Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal of Kerala and or ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-29-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker73
1. This is an appeal by the 3rd respondent in 0. P. No. 313 of 1953 against the decision In that petition. The decision has since been reported, Nambudiripad v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, 1951 Ker LJ 863.2. The Regional Transport Authority, granted a stage carriage permit to the petitioner in 0. p. No. 313 of 1958 and rejected, the application of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent challenged the correctness of the order before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by an appeal under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Appeal No. 35 of 1957. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal sat aside the order and remanded the case for fresh disposal to the Regional Transport Autho-rity, Kozhikode, The Original Petition was directed against the order of remand.3. Vaidialingam J. held that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal had no powers of remand, and thateven if it had such a power, the circumstances of the case did not justify the remand directed by the Tribunal. We are...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataramana Udupa Vs. Kannan Chettiar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-24-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker9
M. Madhavan Nair, J.1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff who sued for redemption of a possessory mortgage executed by his father in favour of the defendant. The defence was that the equity of redemption having been sold in execution of the decree in C. S. No. 32 of 1934 instituted against the plaintiff's father on the file of the Adoor Panchayat Court, the plaintiff had no title to redeem. Ext. B-5 is the sale certificate in that case, and Ext. B-6 a release or transfer of the rights thereunder by the auction-purchaser to the present defendant. In replication, the plaintiff asserted that the decree in C. 3. No. 32 of 1934 was void as the Panchayat Court had no jurisdiction to try that suit the claim wherein was above Rs. 200/- or to pass a decree against him who was then a minor on record as the sole legal representative of the defendant, The Munsif found the decree in C. S, No. 32 of 1934 to be 'beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Panchayat Court and therefore totally void' ...
Tag this Judgment!irinjakuda Bank Ltd. Vs. Irinjalakuda St. Mary's Church and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Ker312
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. The suit which has led to this second appeal was by the appellant, a bank, for a mandatory injunction to the respondent, a church, to restore an inscription on a 'cupola' or edifice erected by the former on the courtyard of the latter and presented to it. The appellant failed in the two courts below and in support of this second appeal three contentions were pressed, first, that the respondent had made a grant to the appellant of a right of easement to maintain the inscription in fact, second, that the appellant had obtained a licence to do so which is not revocable and third, that the respondent is estopped by acquiescence from setting up a right to efface the inscription.2. The facts necessary to understand these conten- tions alone need be stated. The appellant constructed the edifice with an inscription containing its name and the date of erection being, 'erected by Irinialakuda Bank Ltd. on November 29, 1936' in English and Malayalam, which was accepted by the...
Tag this Judgment!Frenchikkose Thommi and ors. Vs. Chacko Devasia and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker75
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. S. A. No. 1012 of 1960 is by defendants 4 and 6 and S. A. No. 1028 of 1960 by defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No, 149 of 1957 on the file of the Court of the Munsif of Changatfa-cherry. In both the second appeals the contesting respondents are the plaintiffs.2. The suit was for redemption of a melvaip-pa pattern, transaction evidenced by Ext. P.r of the year 1079. The suit properties and other pro-perties belonged in ienm to the Mariyappally Kot-taram and Ext. p.i was executed by the members of the said Kottaram in favour of a person named Pattathil Krishna Pillai. The rights of the Kottaram devolved on the members of the Nedumpu-rathu Koikkal under. Ext. P.2 of 1083 and thereafter, the properties of the Koikkal were partitioned under Ext. P. 14 of 1116, being the judgment in the suit for partition, O. S. No. 673; of 1109 of the MunsifJs Court of Thiruvalla. The suit properties, which formed part of the properties mortgaged under Ext. p.i were set apart to some members ...
Tag this Judgment!Govindan Neelakantan Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-17-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ540
1. The accused who has been convicted of murder for causing the death of one Ramakrishna Pillai by a stab with a dagger on 19-5-1961 and sentenced by the Sessions Judge, Alleppey, to death has preferred this appeal from his conviction and sentence; and the Sessions Judge has submitted the proceedings to this Court for confirmation under Section 374, Cr.P.C.2. According to the prosecution at about 6 p.m., on 19-5-1961, the accused and Pw. 1 were engaged in a conversation in front of Pw. 3's teashop near the cinema theatre at Oachira when Ramakrishna Pillai (the deceased) and George came by that way. The accused desired George to treat him with tea, but the latter refused to oblige him. The accused felt slighted at this and caught George by his waist, but George wriggled out of the catch when the, accused gave him a blow with his hand, and Ramakrishna Pillai fisted the accused once on his forehead. Pws, 1 and 3 and others intervened and averted further scuffle among them.RamaKrishna Pill...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›