Kerala Court March 1985 Judgments
Sivadasan Vs. Govindan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1553
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. The illegitimate child of the respondent & the revision petitioner. The short question for consideration is whether the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act is irrebuttable and whether that presumption will always stand in the way of an illegitimate child claiming maintenance from the putative father.2. The revision petitioner, a minor child, by name Sivadasan, was born to Sreemathi, who had a former husband by name Sankaranarayanan. Sankaranarayanan married Sreemathi in 1974. The allegation is that after a few months of the marriage, Sankaranarayanan left Sreemathi and thereafter he was not heard of and he had no access to her. The further allegation is that subsequently the respondent Govindan alias Unnikurup developed intimacy with Sreemathi and they were living like husband and wife at the residence of the respondent. In that alliance, Sreemathi became pregnant and the revision petitioner was born. Sreemathi for herself and on behalf of her mi...
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Rajendran Vs. P.V. Ayyappan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1287
ORDERK.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The Advocate General for the State is appointed by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Clause (1) of Article 165 of the Constitution. Clause (2) of Article 165 provides that it shall be the duty of the Advocate General to give advice to the Government upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the Governor, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force.2. In pursuance of the above power under Clauses (2) arid (3) of Article 165, the Government of Kerala has made 'the Rules' regarding the duties, remuneration etc. of the Advocate General, contained in the Notification, No. LD(A)l-3006/56/Law, dt. 1st Nov. 1956. Clause 18 of the Rules stipulates that the Advocate General is bound to perform such other duties of a legal character as may, from time to time, be r...
Tag this Judgment!C.i. Abraham Vs. K.A. Cheriyan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker60
Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Appellant is the defendant in O.S. 277 of 1975 of the III Additional Sub-Court, Ernakulam. The plaintiff (respondent herein) filed the suit for rendition of accounts, and to recover Rs. -19,0997- or such further amount as would be found due to him, on settlement of accounts with the defendant together with 6% interest thereon. The learned Sub-Judge decreed the suit for Rs. 19,099.89 with 6% interest from 9-10-1975 and costs against the defendant. Aggrieved by the same the above appeal has been filed by the defendant. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for rendition of accounts by the defendant and to recover the amount as per Ext. B4 or such other sum as found due to him from the defendant on settlement of accounts. Appellant died and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional appellants 2 to 4 Defendant admitted the settlement evidenced by Ext. B4 and contended that out of the said amount Rs. 11,0007- is due to him by way of commission and remuneration fo...
Tag this Judgment!E.V. Kunhimariam Vs. Ooramveettil Mammu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ker239
K. Sukumaran, J.1. This case may well serve as a study in the continuing suffering of Indian womanhood. The legal battle for getting a paltry amount of less than Rs. 2,000/- by way of mahar and past maintenance, spanned a period of nearly a decade and spread over three courts including the High Court.2. Mammu, was a man of means, owning landed properties, and doing business in the bury bazar of Nadapuram. He was married and with six children. His wife had gone to her parents house, presumably for the delivery of the 7th child. He felt like marrying again; he was only around 45; and his personal law permitted it. That was how he married Kunhimariyam, a girl about half his age, on 9-4-1972. The married life, nay, even the honey moon -- was, however, short-lived. By the end of July, the first wife came back. The second wife was packed off to her parents' house. She was then big with a child; and in due time delivered Suhara, the 2nd plaintiff in the case.3. It was thereafter a case of con...
Tag this Judgment!K. Krishnankutty, M.L.A. and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ker148
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. Some of the Hindu Members of the Kerala Legislative Assembly challenge 'The Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1984' -- in short the Ordinance -- under which every Hindu member of the Legislative Assembly of this State who intends to participate in the election of one member to the Travancore Devaswom Board is compelled to file a declaration signed by him 'to the effect that he believes in God and professes the Hindu religion.'2. The Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (Act XV of 1950) was enacted to make provision 'for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswom and other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds', of the Travancore, Cochin areas. The Act provides for the vesting of the administration of the Devaswoms in Devaswom Boards, one for the Travancore and another for the Cochin areas and the provisions in respect of the two Devaswoms are practically the same....
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Karunakaran Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-1985
Reported in: (1986)ILLJ124Ker
Narendran, J.1. These writ appeals are against common judgment in O.P. Nos. 1899 of 1980 and 3414 of 1981. Writ Appeal No. 658 of 1983 has been filed by the Union of India and the Chairman, Coffee Board, who were respondents in O.P. 1899 of 1980 while Writ Appeal No. 659 of 1983 has been filed by the Chairman, Coffee Board and the Deputy Vigilance Officer, Vigilance Division, Coffee Board, who were respondents in O.P. No. 3414 of 1981. The sole respondent in these writ appeals is none other than the petitioner in the above original petitions. The challenge is against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing O.P. No. 1899 of 1980 and disposing of OP. No. 3414 of 1981 on the ground that the questions raised in that original petition will not arise for consideration in view of the fact that OP. No. 1899 of 1980 was allowed. The short facts are: The petitioner in the original petition (the respondent in the writ appeals) was a junior clerk of the Coffee Board from 1963 onwa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›