Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1966Ker305
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. The plaintiff who is the appellant has preferred this appeal against the preliminary decree in a suit for partition. The 3rd defendant is the mother of the first defendant while the plaintiff is the first defendant's son. The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3 are governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law. The plaintiff claimed one-half share in the plaint A and B schedule items on the ground that they are his joint family properties. The trial Court dismissed the suit regarding A schedule properties and passed a preliminary decree allowing the plaintiff one-half share in plaint B schedule items. In this appeal the plaintiff claims half share in the A schedule, items as well.2. The first defendant got the plaint B Schedule items and a mortgage right of the value of Rs. 2,000 over the plaint A schedule items as per the partition deed Ext. A dated 6-1-1097 entered into between him and his brother's son. The properties thus obtained by the first defendant under Ext. A are t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1967Ker44
ORDERAnna Chandy, J. 1. One Koyatti who received a notice from the Executive First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode purporting to be under Section 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code slating :' Whereas it has been made to appear to me that you have failed to vacate the buildings in T. S. No. 226 in Ward XVII Block 8 acquired as per award No. 34/64 dated 30-9-64 for a Government purpose in spite of the notice under L. A. Act already served on you and whereas it has become expedient to get the buildings and land vacated as it has been acquired for a Government purpose, I do hereby direct and require you within 48 hours of the receipt of this notice to vacate the said buildings and surrender possession to the Special Tahsildar (L. A.) Kozhikode who has received necessary directions in the matter or to appear before me on 31-3-1965 at 11 a.m., at my Court and show cause why this order should not he enforced.'is the revision petitioner.2. The order is sought to be cancelled on the ground that it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1967CriLJ198
Anna Chandy, J.1. One Koyatti who received a notice from the Executive First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode purporting to be under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code staling:Whereas it has been made to appear to me that you have failed to vacate the buildings in T. S. No. 226 in Ward XVII Block 3 acquired as per award No. 34/64 dated 30-9-64 for a Government purpose in spite of the notice under L. A. Act already served on you and whereas it has become expedient to get the buildings and land vacated as it has been acquired for a Government purpose, I do hereby direct and require you within 48 hours of the receipt of this notice to vacate the said buildings and surrender possession to the Special Tahsildar (L. A.) Kozhikode who has received necessary directions in the matter or to appear before me on 31-3-1965 at 11 a.m., at my Court and show cause why this order should not be enforced.is the revision petitioner.2. The order is sought to be cancelled or. the 'ground that it is passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1966Ker303
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 2 and 3 from a decree passed in the suit based on a promissory note, Ext. P-2, dated 10th March, 1955 executed by the appellants as well as the 1st defendant in favour of the 1st respondent the plaintiff. The only question arising for determination in this appeal is whether the appellants can be held liable on the note.2. It is urged that they were only sureties and further that there has been a novation of the contract embodied in Ext. P-2 promissory note by the execution of the agreement Esi. P-1dated 1st June, 1955 between the 1st Pespon-dent and the 1st defendant. The Court below held dealing with issues 5 and 6 framed in the case that there has been no novation. It also held that defendants 2 and 3 are liable. It is not clear from the finding entered on issues 1 and 2 whether the Court below came to the conclusion that defendants 2 and 3 are only sureties.3. The arguments before us centered mainly under two heads. Firstly, it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1967)ILLJ342Ker
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the petitioner in Original Petition No. 438 of 1965. That petition challenged, without success, the validity of Ex. P. 7, an order of the Chief Conservator of Forests, dismissing the petitioner from his post as forester in the service of the State.2. The enquiry Into the allegations against the appellant was conducted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Malayattur. One of the contentions urged before us is that he was not competent to conduct the enquiry under Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960.3. Rule 16 provides the procedure for imposing a major penalty like the one imposed in this case. Sub-rule (2)(b) of that rule says that the enquiry may be conducted by (i) the Government,(ii) the appointing authority,(iii) the disciplinary authority,(iv) the head of the department or any officer of the department empowered by the appointing authority or the head of the department, or(v) a special officer or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1966]18STC421(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. This writ petition is to quash the orders exhibits P-3 and P-4 and to restrain the 1st respondent by a writ of prohibition from taking steps for the recovery of the tax. The petitioner is a non-resident dealer having its principal place of business at Bangalore. It is not a registered dealer in the Kerala State. For the year 1957-58, a first notice dated 3rd March, 1960, was issued to the petitioner under the provisions of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. This was followed by a notice dated 3rd June, 1960, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why it should not be prosecuted for non-registration. The petitioner would appear to have replied that the sales effected by it were only inter-State sales exempt from tax under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. Best of judgment assessment was made on the petitioner by an order, a copy of which has been produced as exhibit P-1 dated 22nd February, 1961. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order and the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1967Ker49
T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. The legal representatives of the first defendant are the appellants. The facts necessary for the decision of the questions raised in the, appeal are stated below.2. The plaint schedule items which are four in number belong in jenm to Kavungal Mana. The Mana executed a kanom demise in respect of the plaint items in favour of Govindan Nair the father of the plaintiff and husband of the second defendant. The michavaram payable to the jenmi by the Kanamdar was 25 parahs of paddy and some sundry items every year Govindan Nair executed a mortgage of the plaint items under Ext. A-1 dated the 2nd of May, 1928, to the flrsl defendant for Rs. 1300. The first defendant was given possession of items 1 and 2. Under Ext. A-1 the first defendant was directed to pay the michavaram due to the jenmi under the kanam document and also to pay the revenue due on the plaint items. Ext. A-1 contained a provision that if before redemption of the mortgage any renewal of the kanam ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1967Ker87
Velu Pillai, J.1. This appeal by the legal representatives of the deceased judgment: debtor is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in S. A. 352 of 1958, by which it was held, that execution petition 401 of 1951 dated the 4th August, 1951, in O. S. 243 of 1929 filed by the respondents decree-holders was within time. The decree sought to be executed was passed on the 28th September, 1931, and the previous execution petition which was within time was E. P 701 of 1943 dated the 28th September, 1943. In connection with that execution petition an execution application, E. A. 1209 of 1944, was made on the 28th November, 1944, for proceeding against additional immovable properties by attachment and sale. That application came to be dismissed on the 8th March, 1945, and E. P. 701 of 1948 was closed on the 4th August, 1948.The present execution petition was filed within the period of three years of the final order on the previous execution petition, as provided ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1966)IILLJ644Ker
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this revision on behalf of the petitioner the learned Government Pleader challenges the two orders passed, one by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act and the other of the learned District Judge, Quilon, accepting a claim made for payment of overtime wages by the respondents for the period 1 August 1957 to 31 August 1959. '2. Respondent 1 on behalf of respondents 2 to 5 filed the application before the labour court, Quilon, under Section 15 read with Section 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, Central Act 4 of 1936, complaining of non-payment of overtime wages which they are entitled to for the period referred to above. Their claim was no doubt opposed by the petitioner on various grounds and it is seen that the petitioner contested the claim of the respondents on the ground that since they are all members of non-pensionable monthly-paid contingency staff they are not entitled to any payment of overtime wages and it was also contended that they canno...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1967Ker103; (1966)IILLJ632Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction for vending toddy from toddy Shop No. 12 of Pullikada, Quilon for the three successing years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. The period for which the petitioner purchased the right to vend toddy at the last of these occasions or the petitioner's licence, as it is called expired on 1-4-1963; and at the auction for the year 1963-64 the petitioner was not the successful bidder. Respondents 2 to 9 were toddy tappers employed for the purpose of collecting toddy from the trees comprised in the petitioner's auction, and were getting wages at 18 nPs. per bottle of toddy. They filed claim petitions 783 to 789 and 793 of 1963 before the Labour Court Quilon, claiming retrenchment compensation as well as notice pay, on the ground that they had been in continuous service for three years under the petitioner, and had been retrenched from service. Ext. P-1 is a copy of the claim petition No. 783 of 1963; Ext. P-2 is a copy...
Tag this Judgment!