Kerala Court July 1963 Judgments
Kalliyani Amma Bhavani Amma Vs. Narayani Amma Madhavi Amma and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Ker358
Velu Pillai, J. 1. This second appeal arises in a suit by the first plaintiff, and her son the second plaintiff, to set aside a sale-deed dated the 6th Mithunam, 1118, by the second defendant who is the mother of the first plaintiff, in favour of the first defendant. The property sold belonged to the tarwad of the second defendant and was allotted to her on partition which took place on the 8th Medom. 1104. The first plaintiff was not born at the time. The plaintiffs impugned the sale-deed as not binding on the tazvazhi of the second defendant to which the property was said to belong. The first defendant contended that by the partition, the property belonged to the second defendant absolutely. Relying on the decision of the majority of the judges of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Iravi Pillai Parameswaran Pillai v. Mathevan Pillai Ramkrishna Pillai, 1954 Ker LT 862 : (AIR 1955 Trav-Co 55) (FB), the Courts below decreed the suit. The correctness of the decision of the majority in t...
Tag this Judgment!Parukutty Amma Parvathi Amma and ors. Vs. Sankara Kurup Rama Kurup and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker4
Velu Pillai, J. 1. This second appeal by defendants 4 and 6 to 11 arises out of O. S. 204 of 1122 instituted in the Parur Munsiff's Court, for partition of an item of immovable property, which may be referred to as the suit property, alleged to belong to the tarwad of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 11. The tarwad owned nine items of properties situated within the former State of Cochin with respect to which a similar suit for partition, O. S. 48 of 1121 was instituted in the Anjikaimal District Court. There was a previous suit O. S. 184 of 1109 in the Anjikaimal District Court by some of the members of the tarwad which was to remove Padmanabha Kurup from Karnavanship and in which the title of the tarwad to all the ten items of properties comprised in both O. S. 48 of 1121, and O. S. 204 of 1122, was found to be established by judgment Ext. XVI, confirmed on appeal by the Cochin High Court by judgment Ext. C. Within a few days of Ext. C, Padmanabha Kurup whose claim to the exclusive...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppathode Madhavan Nair and ors. Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker287
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this batch of 14 writ petitions, the pen-tinners, though different, who are all owners of forest lands in the area, commonly known as the Malabar area, attack the group of four Sections, namely, Sections 48 to 51, contained in Chapter VII of the Kerala Forest Act, 1951, (Act IV of 1962), hereinafter to be referred to as the Kerala Act, as unconstitutional and as Infringing the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 19(1) (f) and (g), and 31 of the Constitution. The State of Kerala is the main respondent in most of these writ petitions, though in some of them some of the officers of the Forest Department have also been included as additional respondents.2. Though the averments contained in all these writ petitions are slightly different, all the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned Gov-ernment Pleader appearing for the State, have agreed to treat the averments contained in O. P. No. 1108/62 as well...
Tag this Judgment!Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni Vs. Kavalappara Kottarathil Kunnukutt ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker86
1. This appeal has arisen in a suit for appointment of a permanent receiver to the plaint properties belonging to the Kavalappara Sthanam, which has been decreed by the Subordinate Judge, Ottapalam. The first defendant is the present Sthanee and the first plaintiff is the heir-apparent thereto. The only substantial prayer in the plaint is for'Appointing a proper person to be a permanent receiver or manager of the properties of the Kavalappara swaroopam to function during the life-time of the first defendant'.and the grounds urged in support thereof, as formulates by the Subordinate Judge and admitted to be correct by the respondent by an affidavit here, are:'(1) that the first defendant has already, executed two gift deeds in favour of his wite and children in respect or a major portion of the Sthanam properties,(2) that the first defendant is not giving, proper maintenance to the members of the family,(3) that the Kottaram wherein the members have a right to reside is left to rum by t...
Tag this Judgment!T. Kunhammad and Ors. Vs. M. Narayanan Nambudiri's Son Narayanan Nambu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker8
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This appeal has arisen in a suit for partition of a Nambudiri Illom ignoring certain alienations executed by its karnavan, the 1st defendant, in favour of defendants 6 to 156. At the time of the suit, the illom consisted of six members, namely, the 1st defendant, his wife the 2nd defendant, and their children the 3rd defendant, the plaintiff and the defendants 4 and 5 in the order of seniority. In passing the preliminary decree for partition the Court below has found the oral lease claimed by the lath defendant not true and many of the impugned alienations unsupported by illom necessityor benefit, and set them aside. Among the alienations so set aside were:. Ext. B-33 dated March 28, 1950, in favour of the 13th defendant; Ext. 6-34 dated February, 28, 1950, Ext. B-36 dated October 14, 1946 and Ext. 6-36 D/- July 3, 1944, the interests whereunder have devolved on the 17th defendant; Ext. B-39 dated November 13, 1936, in favour of the 19th defendant; and Ext. B-75 da...
Tag this Judgment!Mathen Simon of Mukalal Vs. Ouseph Looka of Makkiyil and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker88
S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. In execution of a decree for arrears of dues passed against the defendants and charged on three-Items of properties. Items 2 and 3 were purchased by the appellant on the 9th Meenom, 1123. On the 29tn Edavom, 1123, that is, more than 30 days after the date or the sale, defendants 4, 6 and 8 applied under under XXI Rule 87 and Section 40 of the Travancore Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the sale, alleging fraud to the conduct of the sale and pleading that they came to know of it only on the 20th Edavom, 1123. It appeared that no notice under Order XXI Rule 20 or under Under XXI Rule 64 of the Travancore Civil Procedure Code was issued to defendants 6 and 8 on the execution petition upon which the sale took place. Defendants 4, 6 and 8 were confronted with the objection, that the application was barred under Article 151 of the Travancore Limitation Act of 1100, corresponding to Article 166 of the Indian Limitation Act. The first court held, that the sale was only ...
Tag this Judgment!Thuttampara Planting Co. Vs. Tahsildar, Chittur and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker141
ORDERP. Govindan Nair, J.1. 'It is common ground that the tax assuming that the Act is really a taxing statute and not a confiscatory measure, as contended on behalf of the petitioners, has no reference to income, either actual or potential, from the property sought to be taxed. Hence, it may be rightly remarked that the Act obliges every person who holds land to pay the tax at the flat fate prescribed whether or not he makes any income out of the property, or whether or not the property is capable of yielding any income. The Act, in terms, claims to be 'a general revenue settlement of the State' (Section 3). Ordinarily a tax on land or land revenue is assessed on the actual or the potential productivity of the land sought to be taxed. In other words, the tax has reference to the income actually made, or which could have been made, with due diligence, and, therefore, is levied with due regard to the incidence of the taxation'. So said the Chief Justice of India in K. T. Mooppil Nair v....
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Chidambara Iyer (died), Legal Representatives S. Sivaramakrishnan ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Ker99
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. The legal representatives of the decree-holder are the appellants and the 4th defendant-Judgment-debtor the respondent. The second appeals arise in execution.2. Five Items of properties were directed to be sold under a mortgage decree; and items 3 to 5, belonging to the 4th defendant, were directed to be sold as the first lot. Notice of draft proclamation was served on the 4th defendant and the first lot was proclaimed for sate. That lot was actually sold on 4th April, and the sale was confirmed on 4th June, 1953. More than two years thereafter, the decree-holder filed an application for amending the plaint, the decree, the sale proclamation, etc. Notice was issued in that application and on receipt of noticethe 4th defendant filed two applications which have given rise to the second appeals. One of the applications was to set aside the sale and the other was to condone the delay in filing that application. The original court dismissed both the applications; but on ...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammedu Noohu Muhammedu Bashir Vs. K. Balakrishnan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ92
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. The complaint in Calendar Case No. 12S of 1961 has filed this revision petition to quash the order of the District Magistrate of Qulin discharging the accused under Section 253(2), Cr.P.C. The complaint was for an offence of defamation under Sees. 500 and 501 o( the Penal Code, the allegation being that the accused had defamed him by publishing false imputations against him in the issue of the Malayalam paper 'Kaumudi', dated 24th September I960. After the sworn statement was taken the complaint was taken on file and process was issued to the accused. The case then underwent a number of adjournments as the complainant did .not appear in court for his examination. Finally the cases stood posted for hearing to 16th March 1962, on which date also the complainant absented himself. Witnesses were also not present. Adjournment was asked for but the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was no reason able cause for the absence of the complainant and:...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Iyer Vs. Ammu Alias Madhavi Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker218
Mathew, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree dismissing his suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property with arrears of rent. The lease deed on the basis of which the suit was filed was executed by deceased Sankara Panicker the husband of the 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3 on 7-8-1925 in favour of the 6th defendant's karnavan, Parameshwaran Namboothiri, and was of a term of three years on an annual rent of Rs. 15/-. It is stated in the lease deed that the plaint schedule property belonged in jenm to Guruvayoor Devaswom and that the Devaswom had granted in 'Anubhavam' right in respect of the property to the 6th defendant's Mana. It is further stated there that the lease is being taken for the purpose of enabling the lessee to construct a shop building for carrying on his trade in Ayurvcdic drugs. The plaintiff had taken a mortgage in respect of the property on 5-4-1946 with authority to collect the arrears of rent and future ren...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »