Kerala Court December 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.
M.P. Kannan, Quilandy and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker143; 1966CriLJ659; [1966]17STC543(Ker)
Anna Chandy, J.1. The two petitioners in those revision petitions are K. P. Kannan a grocerv dealer in Quilandy and his son M P. Balan They were convicted in two cases C C. 355 of 1962 and C. C 3 of 1962 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate. Quilandy. The two cases arose out of the same incident.2. The facts so far as they are necessary tor the purposes of this case may be stated thus: P. W 1 the Intelligence Officer of the Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kozln kode accompanied by two of his Inspectors went to inspect the first accused's shop on the evening of 5-10-1961. They entered the shop and introduced themselves as Sales Tax Officers visiting the shop for the purpose of inspecting the account hooks. The first accused produced some account books which were inspected by P W 1. In the course of the inspection P. W. 1 noticed some note-books and slips in an open rack and asked him to hand them over for inspection. The first accused placed them on the table. P. ...
Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. S. Chattanath Karavalar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker225
Govinda Menon, J.1. This appeal arises out of restitution proceedings in O. S. 114 of 1957 of the Sub Court. Alleppey 2. Shortly stated the facts giving rise to this proceeding are as follows :The appellant (plaintiff) had filed a suit Order 8. 114 of 1957 before the Sub Court twalnst the respondent and two others for recovery of amounts due under an over-draft account. The respondent resisted the suit on the ground that he was only a surety and not a co-obligant and that his liability as surety was discharged on account of the plaintiff's violation of the terms pf the contract between himself and the bank. Learned Subordinate Judge look the view that the respondent was not merely a surety but a co-obligant and naturally did not go into the question whether he was absolved from liability as a surety and passed the decree as prayed for. Against the judgment and decree the respondent filed A. S. 561 of 1961 D/- 18-7-1962 (Ker) In the High Court, but the appeal was dismissed. The matter w...
Rev. Father K.C. Alexander of Kuttikandathilaya Kollakulhiyil, Thadiyo ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker286
Raman Nayar, J. 1. This appeal is by a plaintiff whose suit for possession, mesne profits, and compensation for waste has been dismissed as against the 1st and 2nd defendants and 75.76 acres out of the 131.23 acres of land in suit (the court below has found that the actual extent of the suit land is only 118.85 acres but the difference in area is of no consequence) and has been decreed only as against the remaining defendants, defendants 3 to 6, and the rest or the land. The plaintiff seeks a decree against the 1st defendant and the rest of the land as well -- the 2nd defendant is only a servant of the 1st defendant Society and has no independent title or possession.2. The suit land is the plot marked L(i) in the plan Ext. L (prepared by the commissioners in some other proceeding. C.M.A. No. 206 of 1110 of the High Court of Travaucore, and proved by one of them who was examined as Pw. 10 in this suit); L(i)(a) is the land in respect of which the suit has been decreed; and L(i)(b) is th...
Rama Varma Vs. CochIn Devaswom Borad (by Its Secretary) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-1965
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ350Ker
Govindan Nair, J.1. The writ applicant seeks to quash Ex. P. 17 order dated 20 March 1964 passed by the Secretary of the Cochin Devaawom Board cancelling the 'provisional confirmation' of the petitioner as the principal of the Sri Kerala Varma College, Trichur. He also seeks to set aside Ex. P. 18 which is the communication addressed to the petitioner that his provisional confirmation as principal has been cancelled. By an order on Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 3848 of 1964 the petitioner has been permitted to seek the additional relief to quash the order appointing V. P. Kannan Nair as the principal of the college in the place of the petitioner.2. The main contention raised in opposition to this writ application is that the relationship between the petitioner and respondent 1 to this writ application is purely that of master and servant and that no relief can be had by the petitioner in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.3. The petitioner was the seniormost professor...
Mohammed Kunhi Vs. Additional Income-tax Officer Cannanore.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-1965
Reported in: [1967]66ITR250(Ker)
The writ applicant was an assessee to income-tax for the year 1954-55. He was assessed for that year by exhibit P-2 order, dated April 27, 1962. By that order, no interest had been charges under section 18A(6) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is said that a notice dated September 3, 1964, was issued to the petitioner on September 3, 1964, asking him to show cause way interest under section 18A(8) of the Act should not be charged. It is further averred that the petitioner did not object to the date of hearing which was fixed on September 19, 1964. So an order, exhibit P-1, dated September 19, 1964, has been passed reading as under : 'I find from my records that interest is due from you under section 217 as the rate of 4 per cent. in respect of the assessment for the year 1954-55 as follows :Rs. nP.Amount on which interest is chargeable 18,134 00Period1-1-1954 to 26-4-1962 Rate4 per cent. Amount of interest 4,822 78This should be paid as shown i...
Kurien Mani Vs. Kurien Joseph and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Ker76
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. The decree passed by the first court as against the 4th defendant (the 4th respondent herein) was not an ex parte decree made under Order XVII, Rule2 of the Code although as against the remaining defendants, defendants 1, 2, 3 and 5 (respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 herein) it was. The 4th defendant appeared by counsel and contested the suit and the decree as against him was after full contest. His only remedy against the decree was therefore an appeal -- in fact even if it were an ex parte decree he would have had a right of appeal -- Muhammed Kunju v. Saramma, 1964 Ker LT 307 deals with a case of a dismissal of a suit for the plaintiff's default and such a dismissal not being a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Code, it was held, with great respect rightly, that no appeal lay from the dismissal -- and that remedy is not taken away by the circumstance that he misguidedly and unsuccessfully prosecuted an application under Order IX, Rule13, a remedy not av...
Somasundaram Pillai Vs. Raman Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker273
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Mr. P. G. Parameswara Panicker, learned counsel for the 2nd defendant appellant attacks the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Alleppey, setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit O. S. 192/58, and remanding the same for further consideration on all other issues.2. It is seen that the plaintiff had obtained two chitty hypothecation bonds, evidenced by Exts. P-4 and P-5 dated 2-5-1124 and 20-64124 respectively. Ext. P-4 was executed by the 1st defendant, the 8th defendant and one Somasundaram Pillai. Ext. P-5 was executed by the 1st defendant and Somasundaram Pillai. Defendants 2 to 7 to the action are the legal representative of deceased Somasundaram Pillai. There is no controversy that plaintiff instituted a suit originally in the Munsiff's Court, Alleppey, an O. S. 194/1125, for enforcing his claims under these two chitty hypothecation bonds. He obtained a decree, and the judgme...
K.P. Bhargavi Amma Vs. C.R. Kuttikrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Ker54; 1967CriLJ199
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. The petitioner had filed a petition M. C. 102 of 1961 before the Sub-Division-al Magistrate, Malappuram for maintenance for herself and her child from the respondent. Though the respondent was served with summons he remained ex parte and an order of maintenance was passed against him. He paid the maintenance amount awarded for some months and then defaulted. Subsequently, he obtained a decree from the civil Court at Jal-gaon declaring that the marriage between him self and the petitioner had been dissolved by customary divorce and on the foot of that decree filed a petition M. C. 89 of 1963 under section 489 Cr. P C.. for cancellation of the maintenance allowed to the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate after hearing the parties passed orders disallowing maintenance to the petitioner and fixing Rs. 12 it month as maintenance for the child. Aggrieved with the order this revision petition has been filed.2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the p...
Kumaraswami Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Rajamanikkam Udayar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker266
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. The first appellant died and his legal representatives have been impleaded as additional appellants 3 to 9. The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are stated here. Respondents 24 and 25 are brothers, being the sons of Karuppudayan. Respondents 1 and 2 who instituted the suit in the court below are the sons of the 24th respondent. It is admitted by both sides that these parties are governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law. The suit properties were demised on verumpattom by the Cochin Sirkar in favour of a tarwad. The rent due to the Cochin Sirkar under the demise was Rs. 1224-8-2 per annum. Karuppudayan got an assignment of the verumpattom right from the members of the tarwad and after his death it devolved on respondents 24 and 25, who executed an assignment Ext. B-5 dated 4-6-1937 in favour of Karuppaswami Chettiar. The rights under Ext. B-5 were assigned by Karuppaswami Chettiar under Ext. B-1 dated 10-7-1940 to the ...
Kuttialikutty Marakkar Haji Vs. Thazhathil Kandankutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Ker78
M. Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff has executed a Panayam deed Ext. B-1 and the 1st defendant, in return, a Panayakaichit Ext. A-1 on April 18, 1953. The advance under the transaction is Rs. 100 and the rental payable to the plaintiff Rs. 11 per annum. The 1st defendant contended that, though two items of properties were mentioned in the deeds, they really concerned the 1st item alone, that the 2nd item had not been given possession to him and that till he received the suit notice he was even unaware of the mention of the 2nd item in the deeds. The Munsif found that item No. 2 did not belong to the plaintiff and that the rental stipulated in the deeds was for the 1st item only; and that has been upheld by the Subordinate Judge. The Courts below nave accordingly decreed the arrears of rent claimed. In this second appeal the plaintiff challenges the negation of his title to plaint item No. 2.2. It is conceded that suit item No. 2 belonged originally to the 2nd defendant. On September 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »