Kerala Court February 1968 Judgments
Gopalan Nair Vs. thevi Amma Thankamma and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker23
M.U. Isaac, J.1. This Second Appeal is by the plaintiff in O. S. 128 of 1960 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Mavelikara. The suit was for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from constructing a building in the plaint schedule property, to direct them to remove the building, if any, constructed therein, and for recovery of ground rent for the use of the said property at the rate of Rs. 10 per annum.2. The plaint schedule property has an area of 3 cents; and it is part of Survey No. 70/18 in Vallikunnu Village, Mavelikara Taluk. This survey number has an area of 90 cents; and it belongs, admittedly, to the plaintiff's tarwad. The plaintiff and the first defendant are the children of one Kri-shnan Nair through different wives; and the second defendant is the son of the first defendant. Krishnan Nair has been conducting a market in the above property over an area of 40 cents. The plaint property is the south-western portion of the said 40 cents. Krishnan Nair constructed ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kadija Bai, CochIn Vs. the Wealth Tax Officer, A. Ward, Mattanche ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker69
Raman Nayar, J. 1. The petitioner, an owner of non-agricultural land and buildings in Mattancherry, Cochin, protests against the levy of what has been called additional wealth-tax, to the extent of Rs. 1800/- and odd, made on her under Clause (c) of paragraph A read with Rules 1 and 2 of Paragraph B of Part I of the Schedule to the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 -- for short, the Act. She attacks the levy as discriminatory and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and she seeks to have it quashed by this application brought under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The legislative entry authorising the imposition of the tax is Entry 86 of the Union List, 'Taxes on the capital value of the assets, exclusive of agricultural land, of individuals and companies; taxes on the capital of companies.' And the law that actually imposes the tax is the charging section of the Act, namely, Section 3 which says that a tax called wealth-tax shall be charged in accordance with the provisions of ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kadija Bai Vs. Wealth-tax Officer, A-ward, Mattanchery.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR114(Ker)
RAMAN NAYAR J. - The petitioner, an owner of non-agricultural land and buildings in Mattancherry, Cochin, protests against the levy of what has been called additional wealth-tax, to the extent of Rs. 1,800 and odd made on her under clause (c) of Paragraph A read with rule 1 and 2 of Paragraph B of Part 1 of the schedule to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957-for short, the Act. She attacks the levy as discriminatory and, therefore, violative of article 14 of the Constitution and she seeks to have it quashed by this application brought under article 226 of the Constitution.The legislative entry authorizing the imposition of the tax in Entry 86 of the Union List, 'Taxes on the capital value of the assets, exclusive of agricultural, land, of individuals and companies; taxes on the capital of companies.' And the law that actually imposed the tax is the charging section of the Act, namely, section 3, which says that a tax called wealth-tax shall be charged in accordance with the provisions of the Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Devassi Vs. Anthoni
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker78
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. None of the conditions in Sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the Code is here satisfied. Indeed, the dismissal of the appellant defendant's appeal to the court below can be supported on the short ground that that appeal did not lie. This is a case where the plaintiff withdrew his suit under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order XXIII -- he was competent to do that and required nobody'spermission since he was the sole plaintiff, the defendant, as we shall presently see being in no sense a plaintiff -- and the so-called dismissal of the suit as withdrawn by the trial Court was not really a dismissal but a mere recording of the fact of withdrawal It determined none of the matters in controversy in the suit -- there was no claim by the defendant to be determined -- and is not a decree as defined by Section 2 (2) of the Code. It stands on the same footing as a dismissal under Rule 8 of Order IX which, because the word, 'dismissal' implying a determination on the merits is us...
Tag this Judgment!D'Souza (R.E.) Vs. Regional Inspector of Factories and Anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ473Ker
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J.1. The petitioner in these cases is the same; and the result of the second case will follow the result of the first case.2. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 92 of the Factories Act for using a building as a factory without obtaining the previous permission in writing of the Chief Inspector of Factories, for failing to apply for registration and grant of licence for the factory and also for failing to maintain a muster-fell of the workers employed in the factory in one case; and for failing to give attendance cards to every person employed in the factory in the other case. He has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20 in each case. He has also been directed under Section 102 of the Factories Act to rectify the defects within a specified period.3. In revision, the counsel, of the petitioner has contended that no manufacturing process is being carried on in the premises; and that the persons working there are not workers under the Factories Act.4. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Easwari Pillai Kaliyamma Pillai and anr. Vs. Easwara Pillai Krishna Pi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker73
1. This Second Appeal is by the plaintiffs, the first appellant being the wife of the second appellant. The suit was instituted to redeem 28 cents of paddy field in Survey No. 598/IA of Kunnathukal Village, held under a mortgage. Ext. P-1dated 16-9-1108, executed by one Sankara Pillai Eswara Pillai in favour of the first defendant. Defendants 2 and 4 are the children of the first defendant. Though the mortgagor has purported toexecute Ext. P-1as if he was the owner of the property, admittedly he had only a mortgage right therein from one Madappan who was its original owner. The plaintiffs seek to redeem the plaint schedule property on the ground that the rights of Madappan as well as those of Sankara Pillai Eswara Pillai have devolved in them. The second defendant alone contested the suit. He contended that the rights of Sankara Pillai Eswara Pillai had not devolved in the plaintiffs, and that he had also no knowledge of the devolution of Madappan's rights in favour of the plaintiffs. ...
Tag this Judgment!E. Enasu Vs. Edakkulathur Kunjuvareed Antony and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker207
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. The 6th defendant in O. S. No. 14 of 1958 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Chowghat is the appellant.2. The 1st respondent herein filed the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of a half share in plaint schedule items 1 to 5 inclusive of the house situated in item No. 1 and for recovery of (sic) session of plaint items 14 to 16 as belonging to him exclusively. The 6th defendant resisted the suit in so far as it relates to plaint item No. 1 and the building situated therein on the ground that the property had been validly assigned to him under a sale deed, Ext. B-2 executed in his favour by the plaintiff's mother Annamma acting for herself and as guardian of the plaintiff who was then a minor, and by the plaintiff's brother the 2nd defendant who was a major. The Courts below negatived the contentions of the 6th defendant and granted the plaintiff a decree as prayed for. Hence this appeal by the 6th defendant.3. The plaintiff and defendants 1...
Tag this Judgment!Kattil Raman Kunhi's sons Chatu and Ors. Vs. Vadakke Poduvath Devaki A ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker121
1. Defendants 10, 12 and 13 are the appellants. The suit was for recovery of possession of the properties scheduled to the plaint. The only questions arising in this appeal are whether the three appellants are entitled to the protection conferred by Sections 7 and 13 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, Act 1 of 1964, and whether the suit is barred by limitation as against any of these appellants. We shall deal with these questions. 2. The suit was instituted on 15-9-1954. On that day only the 10th defendant was on the party array. Defendants 12 and 13 were impleaded in the suit in the year 1959. The suit has been filed on the basis of an execution sale held In O. S. 306 of 1942 of the Chowghat Mun-siff's Court. That sale was on 1-7-1942and was confirmed on 17-8-1942. The decree holder took what is called symbolical delivery of the properties on the 14th and 15th of September, 1942. 3. A question has been raised as to, whether a suit would lie in view of Section 47 of the Code of Civi...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Nair (P.N.) Vs. State of Kerala (by Chief Secretary) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-1968
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ333Ker
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. The petitioner while functioning as a permanent teacher in the Sakthi Vilasom High School, Edanad, was placed under suspension with effect from 6 February 1957 pending enquiry into a criminal case instituted against him by the police for offences punishable under Sections 417 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Although the case ended in a conviction before the District Magistrate's Court of Ernakulam, the petitioner was ultimately acquitted on appeal by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Parur, dated 18 March 1960. In view of his having been so acquitted, he was directed to be reinstated in service by order dated 7 June 1961 passed by the District Educational Officer, Palai. Exhibit P. 2 is the certificate issued to the petitioner by the headmaster evidencing his reinstatement in service. Thus it would be seen that he was under suspension during the period from 6 February 1957 to 7 June 1961.2. It is necessary to mention that at the time when the o...
Tag this Judgment!D.S. Thampi Vs. Charles D'Cruz John D'Cruz and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker19
P.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. I think the Courts below rightly dismissed the plaintiff appellant's suit as barred by limitation, rightly applying Article 148 of the Limitation Act of 1908. 2. The plaint runs us follows :-- '1. The property described in the schedule below belonged to Puliyarathala thar-wad of Madathuvilaikom Muri, do village. 2. Mallievan Kali, who was the Karnavan of the tharwad had given 3 items of properties including the plaint schedule items on otti and Kuzhikanam under document No. 1286 of 1958. 3. That right had devolved upon Path-ummal Veeyammal. Easwari Narayani, a member of the Puliyarathala Tharwad obtained a transfer of the right under the said document by paying the full amount of 1000fanams and obtained possession of the properties mid was enjoying the properties. 4. While so, Eswari Narayani died, and her special right devolved upon her four heirs, Velayudban Pillai, Narayana Pillai, Parvathi Pillai and Govinda Pillai, each of them getting a right to 250 fan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »