Kerala Court August 1988 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Raman Pillai Vasudevan Nair Vs. Subhadra Amma Nirmala Devi and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1274
ORDERK. Sreedharan, J.1. First respondent approached the trial court, claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, for maintenance Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court allowed that petition and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. That order is under challenge.2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the first respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The claim for maintenance of the first respondent was disputed on the ground that there is no valid marriage between the parties because the petitioner had married another lady by name, Vasanthakumari D/o. Jagadamma, on 30-8-1973 and that, that marriage is subsisting. According to the first respondent the petitioner did not divulge the existence of the marriage between him and Smt. Vasanthakumari and that a valid marriage took place between them. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner mar...
C. Narayanan Vs. Gangadharan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-02-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker256
ORDERK.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 349/83 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Palghat is the revision petitioner.2. The respondent instituted the suit for recovery of the property in dispute on the strength of title. The suit has been decreed, accepting the case of the plaintiff that the property belongs to him although it stands in the name of the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner-defendant has been found to be only a benamidar. A reference in this connection to the following excerpts from the judgment of this Court in (by this judgment this Court disposed of the appeal where the decree sought to be executed was under attack) is relevant, (at p. 330 of AIR).'There is no evidence in this case to show that the plaintiff wanted to benefit the defendants when he provided funds forpurchase of landed properties. On the other hand, the evidence is overwhelming in this case to the effect that money was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant in O.S. No. 349 of 19...
C. Narayanan Vs. Gangadharan (No. 2)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-02-1988
Reported in: [1989]180ITR503(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The defendant in 0. S. No. 349 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Palghat, is the revision petitioner.2. The respondent instituted the suit for recovery of the property in dispute on the strength of title. The suit has been decreed, accepting the case of the plaintiff that the property belongs to him, although it stands in the name of the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner-defendant has been found to be only a benamidar. A reference in this connection to the following excerpts from the judgment of this court in Narayanan v. Gangadharan : [1989]180ITR491(Ker) , (by this judgment, this court disposed of the appeal where the decree sought to be executed was under attack) is relevant (at p. 502 of 180 ITR) :'There is no evidence in this case to show that the plaintiff wanted to benefit the defendants when he provided funds for the purchase of the landed properties. On the other hand, the evidence is overwhelming in this case to the effect that mon...
Velayudhan Ramakrishnan and ors. Vs. Rajeev and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker12
K. Sukumaran, J.1. The Benami OrdinanceThe interpretation of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition of the Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') arises for consideration in the second appeal. As to how the Ordinance is attracted to the case will be revealed from the facts to follow.Facts of the Case 2. The facts of the case are short and simple.3. The suit was filed for partition and the invalidation of Ext. A3 document dt. 11-8-1965 executed by the plaintiffs mother the 3rd defendant. He claimed one fifth share in the property and contended that the alienation effected by his mother at a time when he was a minor was invalid as regardshis share. One Padmanabhan was the original owner of the property. Through his first wife. he had two sons Bhaskaran and Madhusoodanan, defendants 4 and 5. On the death of his first wife, Padmanabhan married Meenakshi the 3rd defendant. Plaintiff Rajeev, and 6th defendant Sarala are the son and daughter born...
Velayudhan Ramakrishnan and Others Vs. Rajeev and Others.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)73CTR(Ker)1; [1988]174ITR482(Ker)
K. SUKUMARAN J. -Benami Ordinance :The interpretation of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition of the Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'), arises for consideration in the second appeal. As to how the Ordinance is attracted to the case will be revealed from the facts to follow.Facts of the case :The facts of the case are short and simple.The suit was filed for partition and the invalidation of exhibit A-3 document dated August 11, 1965, executed by the plaintiffs mother, the 3rd defendant. He claimed one-fifth share in the property and contended that the alienation effected by his mother at a time when he was a minor was invalid as regards his share. One Padmanabhan was the original owner of the property. Through his first wife, he had two sons, Bhaskaran and Madhusoodanan, defendants Nos. 4 and 5. On the death of his first wife, Padmanabhan married Meenakshi, the 3rd defendant. Plaintiff, Rajeev, and the 6th defendant, Sarala, are the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›