Kerala Court December 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Payyan Valappil SobhA. Vs. Chandroth Mineesh.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. Plaintiff is the appellant. Her suit for injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory, was negatived by both the courts below, and hence, this appeal. 2. Plaintiff claimed that the suit properties belong to her and other co-owners and they are in joint possession of the same. She is managing the property on behalf of all the co-owners was her claim for laying the suit for discretionary reliefs of injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory against the defendant, alleging that he had trespassed upon the eastern portion of the plaint schedule property, demolished the fence and constructed a compound wall taking a portion of the plaint property, and also threatened to demolish a portion of the building situated in the plaint property. 3. Plaint property is covered by the bequest made under Ext.A1 Will by one Pokkan Nair in favour of his two sons, Kunhambu Nair and Kunhiraman Nair. Plaintiff is the daughter of Kunhiraman Nair, who under the will got item No.10 property described therein. A...
N.M.Narayanan, and ors. Vs. Naduvil Madom, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. Some of the defendants in a suit for eviction are the appellants. Concurrent decision rendered by the courts below holding that the first respondent/plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit property, a building with arrears of rent and also the sum fixed due, towards use and occupation of the building after termination of the tenancy, is challenged in the appeal. 2. Admittedly, the building is owned by the plaintiff and it was let out under a tenancy arrangement, fixing a monthly rent of Rs.15/- per month by a registered deed in 1951, in favour of the predecessor of the defendants. Subsequently the rent was enhanced to Rs.40/- per month. Plaintiff is a Hindu religious institution, governed by the provisions covered by Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act 15 of 1950, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The Cochin Devaswom Board constituted under the above Act, admittedly, has a supervisory regulatory control over the affairs of the institution in the creation of mort...
M.S.Varghese. Vs. Elsamma Dominic, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. Petitioner, the complainant in S.T.4/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thamarassery filed C.M.P.3394/2010 under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure to examine one witness, whose presence was mentioned in the complaint and also shown as a witness to be examined and whose presence was spoken to by the petitioner when examined as PW1, but not examined before the prosecution evidence was closed. After closing the defence evidence, when the case was posted for arguments, petition under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure was filed. 2. First respondent/accused opposed the application by filing Annexure-B objection contending that the reason shown for non examination is not correct and there was no prayer for adjournment of the trial for the purpose of examination of the witness on the ground that he is laid up and attempt is to fill up lacuna which cannot be permitted. 3. By Annexure-C order learned Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that Honourabl...
Syamalakumari, and ors. Vs. Vijayalakshmi Amma, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. Two legal questions arise for decision in this revision. First, whether it is obligatory that an appeal preferred under Section 18 of Act 2 of 1965 should be accompanied a certified copy of the impugned order passed by the Rent Control Court. Second, whether the carbon copy of the order issued to a party in terms of Rule 239(3) of the Civil Rules of Practice qualifies as a certified copy for the purposes of appeal. 2. In the instant case, the rent control appeal was preferred by one Rajendran, the original tenant (the predecessor in interest of the revision petitioners) on the strength of a carbon copy issued to him. A separate petition was also filed seeking reception of the appeal without certified copy and undertaking to produce the certified copy as and when the same is received. The tenant's advocate received the certified copy on 22-5-2009 and produced the same before the Rent Control Appellate Authority with a memo on 5-6-2009. In the meanwhile, the original tenant Sri.Rajend...
Laiju, and ors. Vs. State of Kerala, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. Petitioners are the accused and respondents 2 to 5 the de facto complainant and the injured in S.C.878/2008 on the file of Sessions Court, Kollam, taken cognizance for the offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 341, 323 and 324 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code and section 3(i) (x) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that the offences alleged against the petitioners are purely personal in nature against respondents 2 to 5 and entire disputes were settled amicably and the incident occurred on a mistaken belief that respondents 2 and 3 had removed the gold chain from the neck of the child of fourth petitioner and subsequently the gold chain was recovered and the petitioners sought pardon from respondents 2 to 5 and the entire disputes were settled amicably and hence it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Respondents 2 to 5 appe...
A.M.Sadhiq. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment, which is revised through Ext.P2, the petitioner had filed statutory appeal before the 1st respondent as evidenced from Ext.P4. Ext.P5 is the stay petition filed along with the appeal. The petitioner had also filed Ext.P6 application seeking to advance the hearing of the appeal. It is submitted that the appeal and the accompanying applications are pending consideration and disposal before the 1st respondent. Grievance of the petitioner is that coercive steps has now been initiated on issuing Ext.P3 notice under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, without considering pendency of the appeal. 2. Considering pendency of the statutory appeal before the 1st respondent, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing that authority to expedite the matter. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents points out that the appeal does not reveal the date of receipt of the impugned order and that th...
Varghese, and anr. Vs. Sheela John.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. The defendants in a suit for partition are the appellants. Preliminary decree passed in the suit holding that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to /3 share in the suit property, 1 rd which was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court, is challenged in this second appeal. 2. The defendants are two brothers and the plaintiff is their sister. Suit properties consisted of two items described as plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule, having an extent of 21 cents and 22 cents respectively. Admittedly, the properties belonged to the parents. Plaint 'A' schedule, 21 cents, belonged to the father and plaint 'B' schedule, 22 cents, to the mother. Plaintiff laid the suit for her /3 1 rd share in the properties and for separate possession, alleging that her parents died intestate. The defendants resisted the suit claim filing a joint written statement contending that the plaintiff had been married away giving her due share from the property of the mother. They further contended that both fathe...
Purushothaman. Vs. the Secretarey, K.S.E.B.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Irinjalakuda in O.S.556/95. The suit is one for a declaration and consequential injunction. The plaintiff is an unfortunate small scale unit 'S.M.Industries' which was started but had only a short span of life. On account of the labour problems and other difficulties repayment to the K.F.C. became an impossibility which resulted in taking possession of the assets of the firm by the Corporation and it led to the non-functioning of the unit. The Kerala State Electricity Board had sent a notice demanding Rs.40,052/- which according to them are the dues from the month of January, 1992 till 1994. It is also contended that there had been a subsequent dismantlement of connection and therefore the plaintiff prays for the declaratory relief that it cannot be directed to pay amount as it had not been functioning and as electricity connection has been disconnected. 2. Defendants 1 and 2 would contend that...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ponnamma, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. Oriental Insurance Company, the third respondent in O.P.(MV)Nos.303/02, 1107/02 and 1209/03, petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur, is the appellant in all these three appeals. Original Petition was also filed by the very same company who was also the third respondent in O.P.(MV).1210/03. Hereinafter, the company is referred to as the appellant. By a common order dated 16/12/06 in O.P. (MV) Nos.303/02, 1107/02, 1209/03 and 1210/03, separate awards were passed by the Tribunal below against the appellant directing it to pay the compensation awarded in favour of the respective claimants. Assailing the above common order and respective awards, these appeals and the Original Petition were filed. 2. The brief facts leading to the appeals and the Original Petition are as follows:- At 8.30 a.m. on 26/08/01 at Mukka along Mangalore-Udippi NH-47, a motor accident occurred involving a bus owned by the Karnataka State Road Tran...
Somanathan. Vs. Rajeswari.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judges Court, Ernakulam in OS No.345 of 1995. The suit is one for specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that they had entered into agreement for sale with respect to 700 square links of land and 'virivu' for a consideration of Rs.9,000/- per cent for the land and at the rate of Rs.4,500/- for the 'virivu'. The defendant inspite of demand had refused accede to the request and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to get specific performance of the contract as he is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 2. On the other hand, the first defendant would contended before the court that out of the property obtained by her she had assigned 5 cents of land in favour of the plaintiff and there was an agreement but without her knowledge the word 'virivu' has been incorporated and as she has no 'virivu' land she cannot transfer and therefore, it is the plaintiff wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »