Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1965Ker1
..... of the defendants. that decree is dated september 13, 1943. in execution, the appellant took possession of the property on october 23, 1943.10. the malabar tenancy (amendment) act (madras act xxii of 1956), which came into force on october 27, 1956, in its section 5(2) provided :(section quoted, as in paragraph 5 above) on january ..... directing a restoration of possession in an application under section 5(2) of the malabar tenancy (amendment) act, 1956. in other words the question for determination is whether such a decision will constitute a decree as defined in section 2(2) of the code ..... did not succeed. it was dismissed on theground that no appeal was available from a decision in an application under section 5(2) of themalabar tenancy (amendment) act, 1556. thissecond appeal challenges the correctness of thatdecision.4. the sole question for determination in the second appeal is whether an appeal is available from a decision .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1981Ker18
..... district judge dismissed the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that the order was 'not a decree by virtue of the amendment act (act 104 of 1976)'. the petitioner challenges this decision in the revision.2. before it was amended by act 104 of 1976 the code of civil procedure by section 2(2) defined 'decree' to include, so far as material, ..... has taken effect, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sec, 6 of the general clauses act 1897,-- (a) the amendment made to clause (2) of section 2 of the principal act by section 3 of this act shall not affect any appeal against the determination of any such question as is referred to in section 47 and ..... shows that it is meant to save only appeals which; were pending at the date of commencement of act 104 of 1976 and also appeals from orders under section 47 which had been passed before that date. in these cases the amendment to section 2 (2) has no application as decrees have already come into existence and in the former .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1963Ker31
..... question that arises for consideration is as to whether the levy of land cess under the provisions of the madras district boards act, 1920, madras act 14 of 1920, as amended by the madras district boards (amendment) act, 1957, kerala act 4 of 1958, is valid and could be sustained.2. there are also, no doubt, some special points raised in ..... supreme court has been held by the supreme court to be invalid and discriminatory and opposed to article 14.32. the learned counsel also urged that the amending act violates the fundamental rights ol persons like the petitioners to hold and enjoy property guaranteed under article 19(1)(f) of the constitution inasmuch as it imposes ..... taking up the matter in appeal before the board of revenue. according to the petitioner the deletion of provisions giving such valuable rights, by virtue of the amending act has effected the fundamental rights guaranteed to him of holding property under article 19(1)(f). there is also an attack based upon article 14 of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1963Ker79
..... ) or clause (6) of section 20 of the malabar ien-ancy act, 1929 (madras act 14 of 1930), and such decree would not have been passed if the principal act, as amended by the malabar tenancy (second amendment) act, 1945 (madras act 24 of 1945), the malabar tenancy (amendment) act, 1951 (madras act 33 of 1951) and this act had beenin force at that time, the tenant shall be entitled to ..... the subject of several statutory declarations by the madras legislature the last of which was in the malabar tenancy (amendment) act 22 of 1956. it is provided in section 5(2) of that act: 'where before the commencement of the malabar tenancy(amendment) act, 1954 (madras act vii of 1954), a landlord has obtained possession of a holding in execution* ota decree passed by a court .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1965Ker71; [1964]15STC615(Ker)
..... air 1958 sc 756) the supreme court had to deal with the definition of turnover in the hyderabad gdneral sales tax act, 1950, as it stood prior to ths amendment by the hyderabad general sales tax (amendment) act, 1953. the definition before the amendment read as follows :' 'turnover' means the aggregate amount for which goods are either bought by or sold by a ..... not necessary to evaluate this contention and it is not considered in this judgment.9. the learned advocate-general cited before us certain cases under the indian income-tax act, 1922, cases like ponnuswami pillai v. commr, of income-tax madras, 3 itc 378 (mad). those cases are of no assistance in deciding the question with ..... tothe effect that the respondent, the travancore rubber and tea company limited, alleppey, is not a dealer as defined in section 2(b) of the central sales tax act, 1956, in respect of its sales of rubber and that those sales arenot as a result liable to taxation under the said enactment.2. the definition of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1963Ker101
..... deals with the history of article 31a. the learned judge refers to the fact that article 31a was inserted.in the constitution by the con-stitution (first amendment) act, 1951 with retrospective effect and, therefore, it must be deemed to have been in the constitution from the very beginning, namely, 26th january 1950. the ..... learned judge also traces the further amendment to. the said article by the constitution (fourth amend-ment) act, 1955, which also was made retrospective. by the constitution (fourth amendment) act, 1955, the expressions 'in the states of madras and travancore-cochin, any jenmom right' were ..... introduced in article 31a clause (2) (a). by the constitution (seventh amendment) act, 1956, in sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of article 31a, the word 'kerala' was substituted for travancore-cochin. therefore, article 31a(2)( .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1968Ker82
..... as meaning property still belonging to the tarwad but as meaning property with the incidents of tarwad property -- of. section 38(2) of the madras marumakkathayam act, 1932 before amendment by (kerala) act 26 of 1958 --and the expression, "individual property" to mean property bereft of these incidents and having instead the incidents of self-acquired property.) the expression ..... joint status which they enjoy cannot be imposed on them against their will. see in this connection explanation i to section 38 of the madras marumakkattayam act as amended by kerala act 28 of 1958 which is only declaratory of the law as also sreedevi nethir v. peruvunni air 1935 mad 71 at p. 78, kuttimalu amma v ..... founded, that is the basis of the mitakshara rule of a right by birth in property taken on partition. 8. section 38 of the madras marumakkattayam act before its amendment by act 26 of 1958 ran thus: "38. (1) any tayazhi represented by the majority of its major members may claim to take its share of all .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1985Ker148
..... temple, and the management of allinstitutions which were under the devaswom department shall vest in the travancore devaswom board'.3. section 4(1) of the act, prior to its amendment by the ordinance read thus : --'the board referred to in section 3 shall consist of three hindu members, two of whom shall be nominated by ..... to affairs in matter df religion'. we are, of course, aware of certain american decisions on the scope and content of article i introduced by the first amendment to the american constitution which, relevant for our purpose, reads thus : --'congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise ..... and all their properties and funds as well as the funds constituted under the devaswom proclamation, 1097 m.e. and the surplus fund constituted under the devaswom (amendment) proclamation, 1122 m.e. which were under the management of the ruler of travancore prior to the first day of july 1949, except the sree padmanabhaswamy temple .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1989Ker177
..... language. the interest that couid be charged by him is also regulated by the act this act was amended in 1963 by the amendment act 33 of 1963 and subsequently by act 11 of 1974 and later by the kerala finance act, 1983, act 19 of 1983. the material amendments made in 1983 are relevant for our purpose. section 4(2) was substituted thus ..... contention that was pressed strongly was regarding the validity of sections 4(2a) and 4(2b) inserted by the amendment act of 1983. it is urged that it is for the first time in 1983 that the act compels security to be furnished by the licencee in addition to the payment of the license fee and these provisions, ..... for forfeiture of security. these provisions were upheld by the learned single judge by the decision now challenged in these appeals on 31st july, 1985. subsequently, the act was amended in 1987 enhancing the security to be furnished by certain classes of licencees, the maximum security being raised to two lakhs of rupees by a licencee who lends .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1974Ker210
..... the land in his occupation on or after the 1st day of april, 1964, such person shall, if he would have been a tenant under this act as amended by the kerala land reforms (amendment) act, 1969, at the time of such dispossession, be entitled subject to the provisions of this section to restoration of possession of the land : provided that ..... per ext. a-1 dated 20-2-1959, that the respondent was thereafter dispossessed only after 1-4-1964, and that by virtue of the provisions in the amendment act 35 of 1969, the respondent would be a tenant entitled to restoration of possession of the property under section 13-a. it is this order that is sought to ..... was not a tenant. subsequently in the light of the kerala land reforms (amendment) act, (act 35 of 1969), the respondent filed an application under section 13-a of the act for restoration of possession of the property stating that he would be a tenant as defined in the amendment act, that he was dispossessed after 1-4-1964, and that he was, .....
Tag this Judgment!