Kerala Court January 1963 Judgments
Subramonia Iyer and anr. Vs. Kandu S/O Rakkandi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker179
M. Madhavan Nair, J.1. The appellants are defendants 1 and 2 in a suit of redemption of a mortgage evidenced by Ext. B-1 dated July 26, 1884. The mortgagor had a kanom right in the property, which was made the subject of the mortgage under Ext. B-1. The mortgage, by assignment under Ext. A-2, became vested in Sivarama Pattar, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. Ext. A-2 was on August 30, 1892. On June 17, 1897, the mortgagor executed an assignment of his equity of redemption in favour of the predecessors of the appellants evidenced by Ext. B-4 in the case. But it was not registered and has therefore been found inoperative to convey any title to the vendee. Subsequent to Ext. B-4 the assignees thereunder obtained renewal of the kanom under Ext. B-5 dated February 19, 1912. On September 27, 1950, there was a partition in the family of the 1st defendant, without junction of the 2nd defendant, wherein the suit property was referred to as a mortgage right. The plaintiff, who is t...
Tag this Judgment!Thomman Mathai Vs. Ittundan Kunjukochu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Ker236
M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. This Second Appeal has arisen in a claim suit under Order 21 Rule 63 C. P. C.2. The facts are as follows :The defendant had obtained a money decree against the plaintiff's brother in O. S. No. 699 of 1114 on the file of the Munsiff, Meenachil, and in execution thereof attached certain movables that were in the house in which the judgment-debtor and the plaintiff live together. By a petition tinder Order 21 Rule 58 C. P. C. the plaintiff and his wife claimed those movables as their own. It was dismissed in toto by the executing Court, but was allowed in part by the Travancore-Cochin High Court as regards the things claimed by the plaintiff's wife. The disappointed plaintiff then instituted the present suit for a declaration of his title to the goods attached, for recovery of the value of some of those goods already sold by the executing Court and for the release of the remaining goods, from attachment.The defendant asserted the goods to belong to his judgment-deb...
Tag this Judgment!The Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board, Trivandrum Vs. the Indu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Ker112
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this writ petition, on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Advocate-General, challenges the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum, in I. D. No. 50 of 1959, and published in she State Gazette on 25th July 1961.2. In view of certain disputes that arose between the petitioner, viz., the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board, and its employees, two questions were referred for adjudication to the industrial Tribunal by the State Government, viz., (a) reduction in salary of the employees with effect from 15th October 1959, and (b) termination of the services of the employees, effective from 3 1st December 1959, as per the decision taken in the meeting of the Board on 15th November 1959.3. He far as the first question, that was referred for adjudication is concerned, it has been drought to my notice that the petitioner Board has adjusted the claims of the employees concerned, and therefore it became unnecessary for the Tribunal to consider and' adj...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ493
Anna Chandy, J.1. The appellant Joseph stands convicted Under Section 303 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to the extreme penalty for having caused the death of his wife.2. It is alleged that at about 8 or 8-30 P. M. on 13-3-1962 the accused who was not getting on, too well with his wife Thressia quarrelled with her and as the result of the severe man-handling that followed she died on the spot. Two of the accused's neighbours Chandy (P. W. 1) and Siva-raman Chettiar (P. W. 2) who had heard the sounds of the beating and Thressia's cries, but had not thought of interfering in the quarrel, wore informed by the accused that when he returned home he found his wife lying dead in the courtyard of the house. These witnesses went out to the accused's house and saw the dead body. Then at the request of the accused P. W. 1 went and reported the incident to the father of the accused. He also informed P. W. 4 Ulahannan who on the next day at 6-15 P. M. went to the Irrikkur Police Station and gave t...
Tag this Judgment!M. Govindankutty and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker221
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J. 1. The petitioners have been charge sheeted for the contravention of the provisions contained in Rule 41 (1) (c) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, an offence punishable under Rule 41 (5) of the Rules. 2. The first petitioner is the Printer and Publisher of a local vernacular daily by name 'Desabhimani' and the second petitioner Is the maker of the offending article. It is said to be a translation of an article under the caption 'War Drums Beat' written by one C. N. Achary in the English Weekly 'Mainstream' published from New Delhi. 3. The petitioners, who are on remand, applied for bail but the application was rejected by the District Magistrate. The Sessions Judge agreed with the District Magistrate when a similar application was made to him. The petitioners have now applied to this court in the exerciseof its revisional powers to set aside the order of the courts below and to grant them bail. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners first argued that the pu...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Ittey of Kochuparangottu Veettil, Kodimatha Kara Vs. Mani of Vira ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker134
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. These two appeals arise from orders passed in execution of the decrees passed in O.s. Nos. 1/5 or 116 and 216 of 117 of the Kottayam Munsitt's court, me appellant in S.A. No, 606 of 1959 is the third detendant in O.S. No. 175 and the same person figuring as me second defendant in O.S. No. 216 is the appellant in S.A. No. 607 of 1959. The question that arises for decision is whether the decrees in these two cases are incapaore of execution due to the bar of limitation. The decree in O.S. No. 175 was passed on 15-12-1941 and the decree in O.S. No. 216 on 27-5-1942. The execution petitions filed in the two cases were on 9-8-1956. These petitions admittedly were filed twelve years after the rates of the respective decrees and the contention, therefore, was urged by the appellant that execution cannot be had in either of the cases. This contention was repelled both by the execution court and by the lower appellate Court.2. The ground on which this contention was negat...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Ker301
Mathew, J.1. Defendants 3 to 5 are the appellants. The suit was for recovery of the amount due from defendants 1 and 2 by sale of the plaint schedule properties, and for directing defendants 3 to 5 to deposit Rs. 40,000/- or such other sum as may be found to have been realised by them by sale of the moveables scheduled in the plaint. Plaintiff is a public limited company having its registered office at Calicut. It went into voluntary liquidation on 13-7-1952, and Shri S. Paramasivan was appointed as liquidator and he has tiled the suit on behalf of the company. The 1st defendant in the case is a private company registered under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office in Calicut. 2nd defendant is the Managing Director thereof. The 1st defendant borrowed from the plaintiff money as per hundies dated 134-1952, 20-6-1952 and 17-1952 aggregating to a total of Rs. 55,000/-. Thereafter the 1st defendant requested the plaintiff for further accommodation by way of loan for a sum o...
Tag this Judgment!Sankara Konar and ors. Vs. Sivaraman and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker37
ORDER1.The order of the Court was delivered by the Acting Chief Justice. When this civil revision petition was heard by one of us, it was referred to a Division Bench as it involved a question of interpretation of Section 106, Code of Civil Procedure, and Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act.2 The facts necessary for the decision of the petition may be stated: in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 163 of 1120 of the District Court of Trivandrum, the property of the judgment-debtor was sold for Rs. 12,000 on 24th Karkatakom 1121. The judgment-debtor applied for setting aside the sale under Order XXI, Rule 87, Code of Civil Procedure (Travancore) corresponding to Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Indian Code. The application was dismissed by the execution Court, but on appeal, the order was set aside by the High Court and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal. After remand, the District Court passed an order allowing the application. This was set aside by the High Court on the ground...
Tag this Judgment!Varkey Varkey Vs. Augusthy Varkey
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker149
P. Govindan Nair, J. 1. The decree-holder is the appellant. A decree on the following terms was passed on 10th of March 1955: 'Annlaya prakanam rupa 500-0 Dhe Annriaya thiyami multhel 6% palisayum uadmyude kodathi Chilaur rupa 77-2-3 dihi vidhi thiyathi muttel 6% patisayun sanidham 2-10 vathi prathiyilum pathika vasthuvil sthapicnun ladani-Kolhumma itinun vidhi kadan randu masathinaham wir-kathparham pathika vasthuvil nadapadh hadathikajiunn thninum vithi.' Since then the first plaintiff died. When the second plaintiff sought to execute the decree, the objection was taken that he was only an agent of the first plaintiffs and that on the death of the first plaintiff, the agency had terminated and therefore the second plaintiff was not entitled to execute the decree. Reliance for this contention was placed on the following statement in the decree giving the summary of the plaint. '1-10 Vadhiku vendi 1-10 vadiku ladahi kittan anniaam 1-10. vadiku vendhiku vendi santia ladakunnaumum 2-10 v...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Ramachandra Iyer Son of P.S. Narayana Iyer Vs. S.V. Annapurni Amm ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker269
ORDERM. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. This petition is to revise the finding of maintainability of an application for the custody of a minor Hindu girl, aged 7 years, moved by the mother against the father. 2. The facts are thus: The parents with their children were living together in Palghat till March 21, 1960, when the mother left the father taking with her the girl who is their last child. In April 1960, the father shifted his residence to Madras taking with him the other children. The mother returned to Palghat thereafter, and the girl resumed school-going. On September 14, 1960, the father came down to Palghat and took the girl from the school to Madras. On September 22, 1960 the mother moved the instant application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, praying, 'The honourable, court be pleased (a) to direct the respondent to produce the minor girl before this court and to order that the girl be re* stored to the custody of the petitioner; (b) to order the respondent to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »