Kerala Court January 1964 Judgments
A. Narayanan Kutty Menon and ors. Vs. Elayat Sekhara Menon and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ker308; 1964CriLJ682
ORDERHon'ble Judges: P. Govinda Menon, J.1. This revision petition arises out of the final order passed by the Executive First Class Magistrate, Palghat under Sub-section (6) of Section 145 Cr. P. C. On being satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning the possession of the property in dispute, the learned Magistrate passed a preliminary order requiring the parties to put in their written, statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject-matter of dispute and requiring them to put in such documents and affidavits on which they proposed to rely in respect of their claims. Both parties filed written statements, affidavits and documents and after hearing the counsel for the parties the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order.2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners B party that the affidavits filed by them have not been considered, that only documents of title have been referred t...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Kurup Parameswara Kurup Vs. N. Vasudeva Kurup
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ker285
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this revision petition Mr. T. P. Malhai, learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner, challenges the decree of the learned Additional Munsiff, Alleppey, dismissing his suit S. C. S. No. 320 of 1961 as having been instituted out of time. The learned Munsif, in the view that she took that the suit was barred by limitation, did not go into the various other points in controversy between the parties.2. it will be seen that the plaintiff originally instituted the suit in the Shertallai Munsif's Court on 26-6-1961; and it is accepted that that was the last day on which the suit, on the basis of the transactions relied upon by the plaintiff, should have been instituted in any court so that it could be considered to have been filed within the period of limitation. Whether objection was taken or not, it is ultimately seen that an order was passed by the learned Principal Munsif of Shertallai on 21st November 1961, directing the return of the plaint for presentat...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kunjukrishnan Nadar Vs. Hon'ble Speaker, Kerala Legislative Assembl ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ker194
M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. The petitioner, Shri Kunjukrishnan Nadar, is a member of the Kerala State Legislative Assembly having been returned in February 1960, from the Parassala Constituency. 2. On November 23, 1963, he wrote to theSpeaker, 'The Hon'ble Speaker,Legislative Assembly,Kerala, Trivandrum. Sir, As I wish to devote more time for meditation and religious purposes, I shall not be able to continue as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, Kerala. So, I request you to kindly accept this letter as my resignation as a member of this Assembly, to take effect from 1-12-1963. Yours faithfully,Sd. (M. Kunjukrishnan Nadar)23-11-1963'. On November 26, 1963, the Speaker read the letter in the Assembly, announcing thereby the petitioner's resignation to take effect on December 1, 1963. On November 29, 1963, the petitioner wrote to the Speaker, ' Sir, In my letter dated 23-11-1963 I have expressed my intention to resign my membership of the Legislative Assembly from the 1st of December, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Edumban Chettiar Chockalingom Chettiar Vs. Ramalakshmi Pichamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker153
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. This second appeal arises in a suit for the redemption of a mortgage. The property belonged originally to one Kadakkarayandi who gave the mortgage In the year 1078 M. E. to one Arumukhom, the right under which is now vested in the defendant-appellant. The equity of redemption of the property became vested by transfer and later by inheritance, in the plaintiff-respondent. She filed O. S. 1468 of 1102 for redemption of the mortgage and obtained a decree, but did not execute the decree and recover possession. Afterwards she assigned the equity of redemption to one Panicker, who sued the mortgagee in O. S. 944 of my for redemption, and the plaintiff in the alternative for the refund of the consideration he paid for the assignment. The prayer for redemption of the mortgage was held to be barred by res judicata by reason of the decree in O. S. 1468 of 1102 and was dismissed, and the prayer for refund of the consideration was decreed against the plaintiff. Alterwards, tak...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer, Alleppey Vs. S. Veeriah Reddiar.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-1964
Reported in: [1966]62ITR248(Ker)
M. S. MENON, C.J. - This is an appeal by the Income-tax Officer, Alleppey, against the decision in Veeriah Reddiar v. Income-tax Officer. That decision quashed exhibit P-1 dated 27th March, 1961, a notice issued to the respondent before us under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of the assessment year 1952-53.The notice was issued after four years and before eight years from the end of that assessment year, and it is common ground that the conditions to be satisfied are those embodied in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 34. Under that provision a notice can be served on the assessee only if 'the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return of his income under section 22 for any year or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment for that year, or have bee...
Tag this Judgment!Varghese Poulose and anr. Vs. K.i. Mathew and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker147
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants and the plaintiff, the contesting 1st Respondent.The 1st respondent was entitled to the suit A schedule properties; the assignor of the appellants was entitled to the B-schedule properties; and the C-schedule properties belonged to others. Under Ex. P-1, executed by all the parties entitled to the lands in the three schedules, the 1st respondent had to cut a channel of specified measurements along his property to connect the Government canal on the east to the B and C schedule properties on the west, it was also agreed under Ex. P-1 that the owners of the B and C schedule properties could use the water coming along the channel for agricultural purposes on those lands; and in consideration thereof the 1st respondent would be en- titled to catch prawns from the properties in the B and C schedules by placing a net in the channel. This was to be a permanent arrangement between the parties; and this also continued for some time. But,...
Tag this Judgment!Padmanabha Pillai Krishna Pillai Vs. Damodaran Vasudevan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker18
Joseph, J. 1. An application to sue in forma pauperis was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that the petitioner was possessed of means. He has therefore preferred this civil revision petition.2. The suit was filed by the karnavan of a marumakkathayam tarwad on behalf of the tarwad. The tanvad was possessed of a plot of land, 14 cents in extent. The petition was filed in the court below on 10-2-1962. On 9-12-1961 the petitioner had mortgaged this property for a sum of Rs. 200/-. The court below found that the value of the property was Rs. 2,450/- that the mortgage (Ex. D 1) was a suspicious document and that even if the mortgage was valid the price of the equity of redemption was more than sufficient to pay the court-fee of Rs. 1,091.25.3. Two points were raised on behalf of the petitioner. One was that the court below was not justified in valuing the property at Rs. 2,450/-. This valuation was based on the price of a neighbouring property situated 300 feet away sold under Ext....
Tag this Judgment!Ayyan Govindan and ors. Vs. Ayyan Kunjan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ker309
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. The suit property which is the subject of the mortgage in suit is the western half of a property, 1 acre and 3 cents in extent. The mortgage was by Kali Aiyan and Chadayan Kunjart, being Ex. C of the year 1093; it was followed by a purakadom by Chadayan Kunjan, being Ex. E of the year 1096. The, right under Exs. C and E became vested in one Velu by assignment Ex. I. Velu leased the property to one Kochuramanand afterwards by Ex. A to the first plaintiff with direction to redeem Kochuraman. Kochuraman was redeemed. Velu transferred his mortgage right in the property to the defendant who filed a suit O. S. 569 of 1952 against the first plaintiff for recovery of possession and obtained a decree. That decree was not executed. The four plaintiffs who are the children of Kali Aiyan have instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises, for redemption of Exs. C and E on payment of the amount due to the defendant. The defendant pleaded that there was a partition ...
Tag this Judgment!Mathoo Phillip Vs. Mathoo Ouseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-08-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker220
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. A Syrian Christian (Nazarani Christian) by name Mathai married his first wife, Eley, by whom two children were born a son and a daughter, the son being the respondent and the daughter being Mariam, from whom the appellant purchased her alleged right in the property left by Eley. After the death of Eley in 1897 Mathai married, again and by the second wife he had three children, one of whom being the appellant.2. The appellant filed the suit (or partition and separate possession of Mariam's share in the property left by her mother, Eley. It has come out in the evidence that Mariam was given stridhanam at the time of her marriage in 1908. The question for consideration is whether Mariam still retained a right tor share in the property left by her mother. One other fact to be noticed is that there was a partition among. Mathai and his brothers in 1092, i.e., after the marriage of Mariam, and Ex. I evidences that partition. Therein it is recited that the property left by...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›