Kerala Court October 1965 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kuttan Narayanan Vs. Thomman Mathayi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker179
T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. Thesecond appeal which is filed by the defendant has been referred to the Division Bench by Madhavan Nair J. in view of the conflict of decisions on the question of law to be decided.2. The suit is filed by the respondent for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint items on the ground that he was dispossessed by the appellant on 26-12-1955. Item No. 1 covers an extent of 7 cents and item No. 2 is a hut standing in item No. 1. The appellant contended that item No. 1 is a poromboke land belonging to the State and since the respondent has no title he is not competent to recover possession of the items from the appellant. The courts below found that item No. 1 is a poromboke land, but the respondent was in possession of the property until he was dispossessed by the appellant on 26-12-1955. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the suit is not maintainable as the respondent has no title to the property and his only remedy was t...
Khan Bahadur Chowakkaran Keloth Mammad Keyi Vs. Wealth Tax Officer, Ca ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker77; [1966]60ITR737(Ker)
Velu Pillai, J.1. The petitioner in O. P. 674 of 1958 is the karnavan of a Moplah Marumakkathayam tarwad and the petitioner in O. P. 684 of 1959 was the karnavan of a Namboodiri Illom, and they seek to quash the assessments of their families under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In doing so, they have challenged inter alia the constitutionality of the Act, as having; been passed by Parliament without the requisite legislative power under Entry 86 of List I of the seventh schedule and in particular, the validity of the charging Section, Section. 3, as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The former contention was repelled and the latter was accepted, by the judgment delivered by a division bench of this Court on the 21st July, 1961. On appeals preferred against that judgment by the Revenue, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment and remanded these and the-other petitions which were all heard together. Of the two contentions formulated above, the f...
Anantha Naicken Rama Naicken Vs. Vasudev Naickan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Ker85
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this revision petition Mr. S. Bhoothalinga Iyer, learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner challenges the order of the learned District Judge of Alleppey dated 31-10-1963 passed in A. S. No. 294 of 1963.2. The plaintiff instituted the suit O. S. 91 of 1960 in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Alleppey, claiming various reliefs. One of the issues framed in the suit related to the question as to whether proper court fee has been paid. That was the subject of issue No. 3. The trial Court, after recording findings on the various points, has also dealt with issue 3, and taken note of the contentions of the plaintiff that the suit has been properly valued and proper court fee has been paid, and also the contention of the defendants that the court fee paid is inadequate. In this connection the trial court no doubt has taken the view that the case reported in Jaya Motion Pictures Ltd. v. New Theatres Ltd., Palai 1956 Ker LT (SN) 9 is applicable to the case on ha...
L. Subbiah Gowder and ors. Vs. Ramayya Gowder and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Ker79
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. The second appeal is by the legal representatives of the first defendant and by the second defendant, the plaintiff being the contesting respondent. The contesting respondent filed the suit, giving rise to the second appeal, claiming that he was entitled to an annuity of 100 paras' of paddy per year from item Nos. 1 to 6, 12 to 26 and 31 to 38, in schedule B appended to the partition deed, Ex. A-2, of 1895. His further claim was that the annuity was originally due to his mother and that the mother executed a will in his favour. The defendants' main contention was that the annuity was personal to the mother of the plaintiff; and that after her death, there remained no further right to be willed away by her to the plaintiff. Both the lower Courts have dismissed this contention and have decreed the suit. The question in second appeal whether that decision requires any variation.2. Under Ex. A-2 the D Schedule properties were kept in common; and 20 items of expenses wer...
Krishnan Nair Ammalu Amma Vs. Kunchi Amma Meenakshi Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Ker86
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. A dispute between the decree-holder auction-purchaser and his assign as to who is entitled to withdraw the money deposited by the judgment-debtor for having the sale set aside (the sale having been accordingly set aside) docs not relate to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. No appeal therefore lay against the order of the executing court allowing the assignee to withdraw the amount any more than an appeal lies from an 'adjudication under Order XXI Rule 16 of the Code, much less does this second appeal.2. I dismiss this appeal....
Minor Veeran and anr. Vs. T.V. Krishnamoorthy and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker172
M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. Appeal by plaintiffs.2. The 1st plaintiff, a boy of 6 years sues, through his father and next friend the 2nd plaintiff, for damages for personal injuries sustained on noon, April 29, 1956, when he was knocked down at Ahvaye by the 1st defendant's lorry driven by the 2nd defendant. He was taken to the Ahvaye Hospital and thence to the Bava Memorial Nursing Home, Ernakulam he was unconscious even when he was taken to the Nursing Home where he was treated for 56 days at a post of Rs. 581 as. 4 p. 6. When at the Nursing Home a senior Doctor of the State Medical Service, Dr. A. K. Menon. was called in for consultation and was paid fee. Claiming Rs. 1,000 also as general damages this suit is laid for Rs. 1,681 as. 4 p. 6.The 2nd defendant remained ex parte. The 1st defendant denied liability attributing negligence of the 1st plaintiff as the sole cause of the accident. Though the lorry had been insured with tho Slate Insurance Department against third parly risks, no ...
In Re: G. Ravindran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker169
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. The applicants had already entered appearance to support the petition for winding up when the winding up petitioner died. The applicants and the winding up petitioner are all contributories seeking a winding up under the just and equitable clause. The cause of action is one common to all of them and I think that the death of the winding up petitioner is sufficient cause for an order of substitution under Rule 101 of the Companies (Court) Rules. In fact it seems to me a stronger cause than the causes specifically mentioned in Clauses (1) to (4) of the rule and I think it clearly comes within the 'other sufficient cause' of the following clause. Even if this is to be read ejusdem generis with Clauses 1 to 4 which provide for cases of default or disability on the part of the original petitioner it would cover the case of death which is the ultimate and most absolute default and disability. 2. I allow the application. ...
Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Dominic Gomez and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-08-1965
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ626Ker
Krishnamoorthi Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by the management of the Tata Oil Mills Company, Ltd., Ernakulam, against the judgment of Justice Sri Mathew in O.P. No. 711 of 1863 Sled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a dismissed workman Dominic Gomez for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the award Ex. P. 1 passed by, the industrial tribunal, Ernakulam, to the extent it is adverse to him and for directions to reinstate him and for other reliefs.2. An industrial dispute between the management of the Tata Oil Mills Company, Ltd., Ernakulam, and their workmen, was referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal, Ernakulam, by the 'appropriate Government.' Of the eight issues referred for adjudication, a part of issue 8 which arose out of the dismissal of the worker Dominic Gomez (herein referred to as respondent) was alone decided, the other issues having been left out on consent of parties. As a result Ex. P. 1 award dated 7 December 1962, was passed by the i...
State of Kerala Vs. Kesavan Govindan Potti
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-07-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker104
T.S. Krisiinamoohthy Iyer, J. 1. This appeal filed by the judgment debtor raises the question whether the execution petition is barred by limitation. The decree is for payment of money passed on 31-3-1954 against the State, The execution petition was mod by the decree holder on 7-2-1950. The contention of the State that the execution petition is barred by limitation was overruled by the court below 2. It is agreed by both skies that the question of limitation has to be decided in the light of Sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it stood prior to its amendment by Central Act 66 of 1956. Subsections 1 and 2 of Section 82 (before its amendment by Act 6B of 1956) rend; '(l) Where in a suit by or against the Government, or by or againsl a public officer in respect of any such act as aforesaid a decree is passed against the Union of India or a State or, as the ease may be, the public officer; a time shall be specified in the decree within which it shall be sa...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›