Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1971Ker11
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. An interesting question of res judicata which has occasioned this reference to a Division Bench has been debated in this Second Appeal. The unsuccessful defendant in the con its below is the appellant before us. The suit against him was for recovery of the plaint schedule house with arrears of rent and future rent, on the strength of an oral lease, alleged to have been made on 14-11-1955, on a monthly rent of Rs. 7. The defence was that the oral lease set up was not true and that the property was held on a monthly rent of Rs. 3, under an entrustment of 1944. Both oral and documentary evidence were adduced by the parties in support of their respective contentions. Both the courts below without going into any of these, decided the case in favour of the plaintiff, on the ground that in a prior small cause suit, S. C. JO of 1960, Munsiff's Court, Tellicherry, the oral lease as alleged by the plaintiff had been found and that the judgment in the said suit (Ext. A-2) c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1971Ker92
Raman Nayar, C.J.1. The question in these cases is whether the issue by the local authority of a stamp of the kind described in Clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 5 of the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act. 1961, namely, a stamp indicating the proper tax payable in respect of the ticket issued for admission to an entertainment, is a condition precedent to the recovery of the tax by the local authority from the proprietor of an entertainment. In Ismail v. Commr. Mattancherry Municipal Council, 1963 Ker LT 1080 = (AIR 1964 Ker 79) a Full Bench of three Judges of this Court held (on the like provisions of the Traancore-Cochin Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, 1951) that it was except in a case covered by Section 4 of the Act--it is because that decision is doubted that these cases are before us--and, although the complaint there was the well-founded complaint that the local authority was collecting in advance the tax payable in respect of tickets to be issued to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1971Ker7
Raman Nair, C.J.1. The activity which it is claimed, attracts the impugned fee of Rs. 5,685 demanded of the petitioner company by the respondent Corporation for the grant of a licence for 1965-66 under Section 299 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961 read with the entry, 'Machinery --XXX -- using for any industrial purpose' in Schedule IV thereto, is the use of the Company's premises within the limits of the Corporation for the purpose of using 1.46 electric motors with an aggregate horse power of 710.75 for the industrial purpose of running a textile mill. The service rendered which, according to the Corporation, constitutes the quid pro quo and justifies the fee is thus described in paragraph 3 of its counter affidavit:'The respondent is rendering service to the petitioner. The Public Health Staff of the Corporation visit the Factory run by the Petitioner. The Public Health Staff give advice on hygienic problems connected with the factory and its labourers. The scavengers d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1971]81ITR230(Ker)
RAGHAVAN J. - Common question arise in these reference; and as many as eight questions have been referred to us. These questions are :'(1) Whether clauses 9 and 13 of the trust deed can be interpreted to mean that poverty is the test in the matter of utilisation of half of the income for the properties in question on the descendants of the settlor or the payment is contingent upon the descendants being in financial distress ?(2) Whether utilisation of half of the income on the descendants is, in the circumstances of the case, a charitable purpose which enures for the benefit of the public (3) Whether a purpose of a charitable nature which does not enure for the benefit of the public can be a charitable purpose for the purpose of section 4(b) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act ?(4) Whether the provision for charitable purposes in clause 8 of the trust deed makes the separate and independent provision in clause 9 of the deed for the utilisation of a specific part of the income on the des...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1970Ker305
Raman Nayar, C.J. 1. In Mathew v. Ayyappankutty, 1962 Ker LT 61 = (AIR 1962 Ker 164) (FB), a Full Bench of this Court held that the sale of tarwad property by the karnavan of the tarwad to a mortgagee in possession alters the character of the latter's possession so as to include within its scope the interest of the mortgagor tarwad with the result that, notwithstanding that the sale was an invalid sale not binding on the tarwad, a suit for redemption would be barred after twelve years of such altered possession. That is precisely the case here. It was in 1926 that the karnavan of the tarwad to which the property in suit belonged sold the property to the 1st defendant mortgagee who was in possession. The sale was invalid for want of the written consent of all the other adult members of the tarwad as required by Section 21 of the Travancore Ezhava Act by which the tarwad was governed and which had come into force a few months before the sale -- only the senior anandaravan had given his w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1970Ker301
Raman Nayar, C.J.1. The Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (Act 21 of 1962) which came into force on the 1st April, 1963, replaced the laws till then in force in this State regarding the acquisition of property, namely, the (Travancore) Land Acquisition Act, 1089 in force in what we might call the Travancore area, the (Cochin) Land Acquisition Act, 1070 in force in the Cochin area, and the (Central) Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (as amended by Madras Acts XXI of 1948 and XII of 1953) in force in the Malabar area. (We shall refer to the first mentioned Act as the Kerala Act; to the second as the Travancore Act; to the third as the Cochin Act; and to the last as the Central Act). Section 62 of the Kerala Act says that the Travancore and Cochin Acts are repealed; with regard to the Central Act it says that that Act shall cease to apply to the Malabar area. The question in these cases is whether land acquisition proceedings commenced under the replaced enactments can be continued at all, wheth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1972Ker47
Narayana Pillai, J.1. The challenge in these petitions filed lender Article 226 of the Constitution by a public limited company, the Lord Krishna Bank Ltd., and two of its directors, is to the validity of four assessment orders passed under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), for short ' the Act', and relating to the years 1964-65, 1966-67, 1968-69 and 1969-70. The orders in respect of the years 1964-65 and 1966-67 relate to reassessment and those in respect of the remaining years to the original assessment itself. The challenge made is on the basis that Section 2(18) read with Section 2(41) and Section 104 read with Section 108 of the Act and the provisions of the Finance Act, 1964 (5 of 1964), authorising levy of super-tax at a rate higher than 25 per cent, of the total income, the Finance Act, 1966 (13 of 1966), authorising levy of income-tax at a rate higher than 55 per cent., the Finance Acts, 19 of 1968 and 14 of 1969, authorising levy of income-tax at the rate of 65 per cent,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1971Ker3
Raman Nayak, C.J.1. These appeals arise out of three suits for redemption (O. S. No. 213 of 1930, O. S. No. 1 of I95J and O. S. 2 of 1951 of the Munsiff's Court, Perinalalmanna) brought by the same two plaintiffs, two of the suits, O. S. No. 1 of 1951 and O. S. No. 2 of 1.951, against the same three defendants. In all the three suits, the plaintiffs traced their right to redeem to a possessory mortgage dated 15-9-1911 -- this has been marked as Ext. A-1 -- and the three suits were tried together along with a fourth (O. S. No. 91 of 1951) with which we arc not concerned. The trial Court dismissed all the three suits; the dismissal was reversed and the suits decreed in first appeal; the decrees made in first appeal were confirmed by this Court in second appeal; and the 5ih defendant in O. S. No. 213 of 1950 and the 3rd defendant in O. S. No. 1 of 1951 and O. S. No. 2 of 1951 have come with these appeals, A. S. No. 209 of 1964 A. S. No. 210 of 3904 and A. S. No. 208 of 1964 respectively, ...
Tag this Judgment!