Kerala Court October 1974 Judgments
Neelakantan Sreedharan Vs. Subba Bhakthan Narayana Bhakthan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-1974
Reported in: AIR1976Ker47
G. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. In this second appeal by the defendant two questions arise for determination, The defendant-appellant urges that there has not been a valid termination of the tenancy as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act for the landlord to recover possession, and secondly he claims value of improvements before eviction, Certain shop rooms and a portico belonging to the plaintiff were let out to the defendant. The rent agreed upon was Re. 1/- per day. Alleging default in the payment of rent after 28-9-1987 the plaintiff filed O. S. No. 587/68 for eviction of the defendant and for recovery of arrears of rent. In that suit the latter relief alone was granted as the court was of the view that there was no proper termination of tenancy. Thereafter the plaintiff issued a registered notice on 5-1-1970 demanding surrender of the building with arrears of rent by 10-2-1970. The defendant did not comply with that notice and so the plaintiff filed the present suit...
Tag this Judgment!Korah Thomas Vs. John Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-23-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker140
G. Balagangadharan Nair, J. 1. The only questionin this appeal by the judgment-debtor iswhether the execution is barred by limitation. 2. The decree which is for money is dated 31-11-1107 (14-7-1932). There were a few execution petitions which were all within time, The last but one of such petitions was dated 16-10-1119 and this happened to be dismissed on account of a stay obtained by the appellant from D. R. P. 30 of 1119 which he had filed. The next execution petition was on 2-10-1120 and this was dismissed on 23-12-1950 owing to an order of stay obtained by the appellant from C. R. P. 1257 of 3121. This C. R. P. was ultimately disposed of on 26-3-1959. In the meanwhile, on 13-1-5959 the appellant filed an application for relief under Act 31 of1958 (the Agriculturists Debt Relief Act) and he also made deposits, of which the last deposit was on 20-6-1963. (The application was ultimately dismissed by the High Court.) On 12-6-1963 the appellant executed a sale deed Ext. P-1 in favour o...
Tag this Judgment!Padmanabhan Bhavani and ors. Vs. Govindan Bhargavi and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker83
G. Balagangadharan Nair, J.1. The principal question in this appeal by the defendants in a suit for partition is whether a residential building which stands on Item 1 belong? exclusively to the first defendant or is available for partition. Items 1 to 6 (subject to the controversy about this building) admittedly belonged to one Sadanandan son of the second plaintiff and husband of the first defendant and father of defendants 2 to 4. He died on February 3, 1962, leaving the second plaintiff and the defendants as his heirs, each being entitled to 1/5th share. By Ext. P-l dated June 3, 1966, the second plaintiff made a gift of her l/5th share to her daughter the first plaintiff. In 1967 they brought this suit for partition. Sadanandan had a Post Office Savings Bank Account evidenced by the Pass Book Ext. D-9. This was con-verted into a joint account in the names of himself and the first defendant in 1959. At the time of his death, the account stood at Rs. 16,594.15 and by May 1965, all th...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Menon Bhaskara Menon and ors. Vs. Madhavan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-1974
Reported in: AIR1976Ker62
Subramonian Poti, J.1. An intersting question is raised ip this revision and that is whether a redeeming co-mortgagor is entitled to claim that in regard to that portion of the property to which title is in the other co-mortgagors he has stepped into the shoes of the mortgagee for all purposes so much so he could set up a plea that he is entitled as a mortgagee to claim the benefit of Section 4A of Act I of 1964. The question arose in final decree proceedings in a redemption suit An application for passing a final decree has been dismissed by the court below and that is the subject of revision.2. The short and relevant facts are: The plaint schedule properties which belonged to Nedumbilli Tarwad of defendants 1 to 8 were set apart to the tavazhi of defendants 1 to 3 as also to the tavazhi of one Karthiya-yani Amma. Distinct portions of the properties were so set apart to the two tavazhies. This was to the partition deed executed in thetarwad in the year 1096. At that time the propertie...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Achuthan and anr. Vs. State Bank of Travancore, Calicut
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker47
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. From very early times chit fund transactions have been highly popular in all parts of Kerala as an indigenous system providing financing facilities in the shape of advances from the common fund repayable in easy instalments and serving also as a scheme for investment and savings. The question that we are called upon to decide in these two appeals is one of vital importance for the conduct of such chit fund transactions since it concerns the legal validity and enforceability of a provision commonly found in most kuri varis and hypothecation bonds executed by prized subscribers in favour of the foreman which empowers the latter to demand immediate payment of the whole of the amounts due in respect of the future instalments in a lump sum with interest at 12 % per annum if default is committed by a prized subscriber in due payment of two consecutive instalments. In Raghavan v. Subbrama Sastrigal, 1971 Ker LT 231 = (AIR 1972 Ker 21), a Division Bench of this court ha...
Tag this Judgment!Kesava Panicker Vs. Damodara Panicker and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-1974
Reported in: AIR1976Ker86
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the first respondent in O. S. No. 1of 1968 of the Court of the District Judge, Palghat against the decree in the case in favour of the plaintiffs removing the appellant from the post of the President of Keralasseri High School Society and from that of the Manager and Correspondent thereof and directing him to render accounts of his management of the affairs of the said society and the school for the period commencing from 1st January 1963. The decree also declared that the plaintiffs, four in number who are respondents 1 to 4 in this appeal will be entitled to a scheme settled by the court for the management of the said society and the school on application made in that behalf. Further, the official receiver was directed to take possession of the properties of the said society and the school including the school building, their premises and playgrounds and other appurtenances as the Manager of the said school and manage the school.2. The suit...
Tag this Judgment!Assainar and anr. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-1974
Reported in: [1975]101ITR854(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The same question arises for determination in these two petitions and the answer to the question depends on the interpretation to be placed on Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for short the Act. To start with we shall read the section.'132. (1) Where the Director of Inspection or the Commissioner, in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that-- (a) any person to whom a summons under Sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under Sub-section (1) of Section 131 of this Act, or a notice under Sub-section (4) of Section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under Sub-section (1) of Section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such books of account or other documents as required by such summons or notice, or(b) any person to whom a summons or notice as aforesaid h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›