Kerala Court December 1970 Judgments
Ayisabeevi and anr. Vs. Aboobacker
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-24-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Ker231
ORDERSadasivan, J.1. The landlords are the revision petitioners. They applied in the Court of the Rent Controller at Calicut for eviction of the respondent from the shop building rented out to him for a monthly rent. The petition was filed under Section 11(4) of Act 16 of 1959 now replaced by the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act--Act 2 of 1965 (shortly stated the Act); (arrears of rent and bona fide requirement for own occupation were also put forward by the landlord as grounds for eviction; but they have been found against by both the Controller and the appellate authority; the grounds falling under Section 11 (4) (ii) alone was pressed). The ground under Section 11 (4) was also found against by the Controller; but on appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge reversed that finding and ordered eviction, on the around that the tenant used the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value materially and permanently. But in revision the learned District Judge has re...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Hydrose Vs. Dy. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-24-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Ker233
ORDERV. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. The petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking to quash the decision of the Kerala Cooperative Tribunal evidenced by Ext. P3, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed an appeal which the petitioner had preferred before it. By that appeal the petitioner had challenged an order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Trichur on 3-10-1970 (Ext. P2) ap-pointing an administrator to be in charge of the affairs of the Punnavurkulam Service Co-operative Society under Section 33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner was the President of the said Co-operative Society and he has a claim that he still continues to occupy the said office. The order Ext. P2 was passed by the Deputy Registrar on the ground that the term of office of the Committee of the Society which was originally due to expire on 30-6-1970 had been extended only till 30-9-1970 by virtue of an order passed by him an...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Transport Co. Vs. Colonial Distributors and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Ker230
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J.1. The civil revision petition arises out of a proceeding under Order VIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading a third party as a defendant. Two objections were raised before the lower Court: one that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the third party sought to be impleaded; and two, that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to decide the question of contribution or indemnification between the defendant and the third party sought to be impleaded. The first objection the lower Court rejected; but, on the second objection, the lower Court agreed with the contention of the third party and dismissed the application for impleading.2. Two decisions were cited before the lower Court, both of the Madras High Court, one by Rajamannar C. J. in S. S. Subulal Sahib v. N. Periyanna Pilial. (AIR 1957 Mad 679) and the other by Srinivasan J. in Roy and Chatterjee (Private) Ltd. v. Scindia Steam Navigation Company Ltd.. (AIR 1961 Mad 367). The fi...
Tag this Judgment!Markose Peter and ors. Vs. Chacko Ittycheria
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Ker276
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1. Both the courts below found that the case of benami set up by Defendants 1 and 2, (who are the appellants in this second appeal) in regard to Ext. P-4 sale-deed relating to 5 cents of the suit property, and Ext. P-5 gift-deed in respect of the remaining 10 cents of the property, had not been substantiated. I am in agreement with the said finding, with which there is no scope for interference in second appeal. The result is that in respect of the 15 cents of suit property, Pathrose, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondent had title.2. The only other question is whether the plaintiff who derived title from Pathrose had shown possession within 12 years of the suit. The suit was instituted on 25-3-1963. Pathrose sold the 15 cents of land to which he was entitled to P. W. 3, the father of the plaintiff-respondent, by Ex. P-2 dated 4-10-1951. The contention of the appellants is that even long prior to the sale, Pathrose had been out of possession ...
Tag this Judgment!R.R.N. Ramalinga Nadar Vs. V. Narayana Reddiar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Ker197
1. About the facts of the case there is no material dispute. The controversy concerns the law applicable to the facts. The question is one of liability of a public carrier who carried goods and lost them due to circumstances beyond his control-2. Mainly two questions arise and those are:(i) Is the defendant a common carrier? (ii) Can the destructive acts of an unruly mob be characterised as act of God? 3. Now the facts. On 8-11-1964 the plaintiff purchased 18 bags of green gram at Kottar in the Kaniyakumari District of the Madras State and booked it with the defendant for transportation to Quilon in one of his lorries. The defendant was running a lorry service under the name 'B. R. N. Lorry Service.' The goods were received by the defendant for transport to Quilon on 8-7-1964. But the goods were not delivered at Quilon as agreed upon. The suit was therefore filed for realisation of the price of the goods and interest thereon. The defence was that while the goods were being transported ...
Tag this Judgment!Victor Fernandez Vs. Francis Fernandez Albert Fernandes and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Ker168
Raman Nayar, C.J. 1. The questionput to us by the bench of three Judges that was hearing this appeal was whether pandarapattam lands (otherwise known as pandaravakapattam or sirkarpattarn lands) of the Travancore area, not falling within Clause (iii) of the inclusive limb of the definition of, 'estate' in Article 31-A(2)(a) of the Constitution, were estates within the meaning of the definition --with regard to lands that fall within the clause, there could, of course, be no doubt, and that must have been why the question was so framed. On the 17th November 1970, we answered this question in the affirmative. We did not then give our reasons. We do so now. 2. The definition reads thus : '31-A. (2) In this article,-- (a) The expression 'estate' shall, in relation to any local area, have the same meaning as that expression or its local equivalent has in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area and shall also include-- (i) any Jagir, inani or muafi or other similar g...
Tag this Judgment!K. Chandrasekharan Nair Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Chief ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Ker229
Raman Nayar, C.J. 1. We think the learned single Judge was right in dismissing the appellant's writ petition. 2. The use of the word, 'list' In he expression 'select list' in Rule 28 (b) (i) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules does not imply hat there must necessarily be more than one name in the list. According to the instructions given in G. O. (P) No. 420 dated 29-12-1967, the select list is to contain as many names as there are vacancies estimated to arise in the course of the year. The appellant petitioner has no case that there was more than one anticipated vacancy, and hence there is thing to show that the Departmental Promotion Committee was not justified n preparing a list with only one name. The Committee found the 2nd respondent superior to the petitioner in merit and ability and as the learned single Judge has observed that is a finding amply supported by the materials. It considered and therefore rightly placed the 2nd respondent's name in the lis...
Tag this Judgment!Giraja Vs. Anantha Bhaktha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Ker236
ORDERSadasivan, J. 1. A question of jurisdiction is raised in this revision petition. Before the Rent Controller, Kasaragod, the landlord applied for eviction of the present revision petitioner from the building under Section 11 (2), (3), (4) etc. of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Con-tori) Act--Act 2 of 1965 (shortly stated the Act). The revision petitioner--tenant filed his counter to the petition for eviction questioning the right of the landlord to file the petition and also questioning the genuineness of the rent deed which forms the basis of the petition. After some time it struck the revision petitioner that due to over-sight certain points were left out in her counter and so R. I. A. 188/70 was filed by her under Section 151, Civil P. C. requesting the Court for leave to file an additional counter. The point sought to be put forward in the additional counter was that the property in question is a residential property and not a commercial site and therefore the bona fide n...
Tag this Judgment!Paul and anr. Vs. C.i. Antony and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Ker277
K. Sadasivan, J.1. These revision petitions arise from the judgment of the learned District Judge of Trichur in civil miscellaneous appeal Nos. 34, 33 and 51 of1969 on the file of his court which arose respectively from M. P. Nos. 818/68, 763 and 2715 of 1969 on the file of the Addl. Munsiff Court, Trichur. The M. Ps. were preferred in O. S. 1061/62, which was a suit filed for declaration that the election of the defendants as trustees of the Chaldean church at Trichur on 9-12-1962 was void and for an injunction to restrain them from functioning as trustees. In the course of the suit, I. A. 13/64 was filed by the plaintiffs for appointment of a Receiver for the administration of the church and its properties. The application was allowed by the trial court; but on appeal by defendants 1 to 10, the application was dismissed by the Addl. District Judge of Trichur. From the order of the Addl. District Judge, the aggrieved plaintiffs came up in revision before this court in C. R. P. 467/66 ...
Tag this Judgment!ShihabuddIn Imbichi Koya Thangal Vs. K.P. Ahammed Koya
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Ker206
ORDER1. Who is a Muslim? An odd question of apostasy was argued with Islamic erudition by counsel for the Kazi of Calicut who is the petitioner in this Criminal Revision Petition and the 4th accused in C. C. No. 22 of 1969. Religion is not amenable to reason and theological disputes cannot be decided by secular Courts. So my duty is as embarrassing as my jurisdiction is limited. Even so, the laws of the land lay down norms of conduct and bind divine and commoner alike. The Indian Penal Code which prohibits bigamy cannot be evaded by pleading Islam unless founded on some exemption recognised by the law. The Kazl (4th accused) is accused of abetting the second marriage of a Muslim woman (1st accused) while her first marriage (with P. W. 1) was subsisting. Whatever liberties the Muslim male may claim the female is governed by monogamy which most civilised nations have accepted as good. But the Kazi holding the Quran and the Holy Prophet as final, argues himself innocent by imputing aposta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »