Kerala Court February 1981 Judgments
Hydru and anr. Vs. Govindankutty Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker49
ORDERM.P. Menon, J.1. Where an expert has already furnished a report about the handwriting and fingerprint in dispute, can the Court, without selling it aside, refer the matter to a second expert This is the question raised. While the petitioners contend that the Court has no jurisdiction to make a second reference without wiping out the earlier proceedings, in view of Order 26, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, the respondent would urge that a report is only a piece of evidence and that the Evidence Act does not restrict the choice to one only.2. Section 45 of the Evidence Act makes the opinion of an expert relevant when the Court has to form an opinion as to the identity of handwriting; and under Section 46 facts otherwise irrelevant become relevant if they support or rebut the experts opinion. These two provisions only deal with relevancy, and not with the mode of making expert opinion evidence before the Court. Section 59 provides that all facts except the contents of documents ...
Tag this Judgment!Kavupadickal Devaswom Vs. Narayanan Potty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker255
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. The revision petitioner's appeal, A. S. No. 44 of 1979, against the decree and judgment in Order 3. No. 91 of 1975, in which the revision petitioner was the defendant, having been dismissed stating 'No appeal will lie. Therefore the appeal is dismissed', this revision has been preferred by him. The plaintiff's suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 500 by way of arrears of salary with interest and costs was filed, registered and tried as an original suit.2. Sri D. V. Radhakrishnan, the counsel for the revision petitioner, submitted that the dismissal of the appeal without stating why the appeal would not lie, is clearly illegal and the order is bound to be set aside for that reason alone. It is difficult to guess what really worked in the mind of the Judge when he dismissed the appeal stating that the appeal would not lie, inasmuch as the reason for holding that the appeal would not He has not been stated. The counsel for the respondent, Sri M. K. Narayana Menon,...
Tag this Judgment!George Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker122
Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J.1. The petitioner in O. P. 1073 of 1976 is a kudikidappukaran in Sy. No. 44/1 and 3 of the Ernakulam Village, in land said to be of an extent of 12 1/2 cents. The 3rd respondent in the petition had purchased the land in court-auction. He then moved an application under Section 75 (3) of the Kerala Land ReformsAct (in short, the Act) to acquire other land for shifting the petitioner's kudi-kidappu so that the 3rd respondent may get possession of land in which the kudikidappu was situate. The petitioner in O. P. 2981 of 1977 is a kudikidappu-karan of land belonging to the first respondent and the first respondent has similarly moved an application under Section 75 (3) of the Act for shifting the kudikidappu to land to be acquired by the Government. Section 75 (3) of the Act enables a person holding land less than 1 acre in extent to apply to Government for acquisition of land to which the kudikidappu in his land may be shifted if he requires the land occupied by...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, E.S.i.C. Vs. Marikkar Engineers Limited and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1981
Reported in: (1982)ILLJ59Ker
K. Bhaskaran, J.1. The Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Trichur, the defendent in the suit, O.S. 677 of 1970 on the file of the Munsiff of Trichur, is the appellant in this second appeal. The prayer in the suit filed by M/s. Marikkar Engineers Ltd, Trichur, the respondent herein, was for restraining the defendant-appellant by means of a permanent injunction from taking coercive steps for the realisation of the employees' special contribution. The learned Munsiff by his judgment dated 5-1-1973 dismissed the suit with costs holding inter alia that the plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction prayed for in as much as the civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for in view of the bar under Section 75(3) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the Act). The District Judge, Trichur, however, on appeal from the decision of the trial Court, by his judgment dated 7-3-1976 in A.S. No. 88 of 1973 allowed the appeal, set aside the jud...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kunheema Umma Vs. P. Ayissa Umma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker176
K. Bhaskaran, J. 1. The 1st defendant in O. S. No. 208 of 1970 on the file of the Munsiff of Manjeri is the appellant in the second appeal. The suit was one for partition and separate possession of plaintiff's 2/9 share in the plaint schedule property by declaring that the plaint schedule property belonged to the plaintiff and defendants jointly and that thealleged gift deed in favour of the 1st defendant and sate deed in favour of defendants 4 and 5 were invalid in law. The trial Court has passed a preliminary decree for partition as prayed for with respect to items 1 to 9 in the plaint schedule. Though the 1st defendant carried the matter in appeal, by the judment in A. S. No. 39 of 1974 the Subordinate Judge of Manjeri has confirmed the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court; hence this second appeal.2. It is not in dispute that plaint schedule Items 1 to 9 belonged to Mammad, the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. Item 10 also admittedly belonged to the said Mamm...
Tag this Judgment!V.M. Mathew Vs. Cicity John and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker56
ORDERV. Khalid, J.1. The jurisdiction of the appellate Court to consider and decide the sufficiency of the Court-fee paid in appeal falls for decision in this revision. The petitioner was the appellant in A. S. No. 23 of 1979 on the file of the District Court, Ernakulam. That was an appeal against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 390 of 1976 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam, filed by the 3rd respondent, the State Bank of India, Thevara Branch, Ernakulam, as an interpleader suit. The Bank had taken on rent two flats of a building from the father of the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2. Since respondents 1 and 2 claimed exclusive right over the properties, the Bank was not in doubt as to the person to whom rent had to be paid or the person to whom it had to surrender the property. In fact the Bank obtained some other building and wanted to surrender the building to the owner. Because of the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 the Bank had to file the suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Standard Pottery Works Vs. Standard Pottery Works Employees' Union and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-1981
Reported in: (1981)IILLJ280Ker
George Vadakkal, J.1. This case decided on 10th February, 1981 without hearing the learned Counsel for the first respondent as he was absent and since no representation on his behalf was made by any one, has been reopened and reheard pursuant to the order allowing C.M.P. No. 2889 of 1981 praying that the case may be reheard and decided afresh,2. As per Ext. P3 order the second respondent, the Labour Court, Ernakulam, took the view that the domestic enquiry held into the charge of misconduct alleged and levelled against one Sri P.S. Velappan, whose cause was espoused by the first respondent-union before the second respondent, was not proper. So holding, the second respondent posted the case, I. D. 180 of 1979. for fresh evidence before that Court. The petitioner herein impugns the finding as aforesaid entered by second respondent on the preliminary issue as to whether the domestic enquiry was proper or not,3. The only reason stated by second respondent for holding that the domestic enqu...
Tag this Judgment!The Edavanna Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. P.V. Shoukathali and o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker84
ORDERG. Balagangadharan Nair, J.1. Petitioner is a Co-operative Society with a Board of Directors consisting of seven members -- five elected and two nominated. The five members were elected on June 30, 1980. The Unit Inspector and the Inspector of Co-operative Societies ARC & EPS Manjori who had been nominated directors on July 14, 1980 submitted their resignations on October 23, 1980. The following day, October 24, 1980 respondent 3, who is the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Malappuram nominated respondents 1 and 2 as Directors in their places. Ext. P1 is a copy of the relative proceedings. The Society represented by its President seeks to quash Ext. PI. Petitioner challenges the nomination of respondent 1 on the ground that he is an accused along with two others charged with criminal misappropriation of the Society's funds and that the result of nominating him a Director is to make the accused and the complainant the same, which is highly detrimental to the in...
Tag this Judgment!Parvathy Rudrani Vs. Lekshmi Yesoda and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker131
ORDERV. Khalid, J. 1. The 4th defendant in O. S. No. 44 of 1978 on the file of the Munsiff, Punalur is the petitioner. This revision is against an order passed by the court below dismissing a petition filed by the petitioner for leave to institute a suit against the receiver appointed in the suit. The suit was for a permanent injunction. An application was filed for a temporary injunction. The trial court originally granted an ex parte temporary injunction. At this stage the petitioner, who was not originally arrayed as a defendant, got herself impleaded and opposed the injunction application. The trial court after hearing the parties, modified the injunction order and appointed instead a receiver to the property. The petitioner thereupon filed C. M. A. 4 of 1978 before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. This was allowed by the Sub Court with a direction to the receiver to surrender possession of the property to the person from whom he had taken possession. After this, the petitioner filed I...
Tag this Judgment!N. Sreedharan Vs. N. Krishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker178
ORDERV. Khalid, J. 1. The petitioner before me is the decree-holder in O. S. No. 1073 of 1974 on the file of the 2nd Additional Minsiff's Court, Trivandrum. The respondent is the judgment-debtor. The suit from which this revision arises was laid for redemption of a mortgage executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent on 14-3-1969. This document is marked as Ext. A-1 in the suit. The petitioner himself obtained this property under a mortgage deed D/- 7-9-195 (sic). The sub-mortgage in question was' to a consideration of Rs. 2,000. The suit was resisted on the plea that the defendant was a kudikidappukaran within the meaning of Explanation IV to Sec. 2 (25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 35 of ]9tifl), for short, the Act. At the trial stage the question raised by the defendant was referred to the concerned Land Tribunal The Land Tribunal wrongly returned the records observing that the question of kudikidappa claimed under Explanation IV to Section 2 (25) of the Act ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »