Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: enemy property act 1968 section 15 returns as to enemy property Court: kerala Page 1 of about 8 results (0.150 seconds)

Joshi Thomas Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Kerala

..... for. they also relied upon the judgment in sewa ram v. union of india and others (jt 1997(4) s.c 692) to contend for the position that when the property is vested under the enemy property act 1968, the purchasers will not have a better title. it is therefore their contention that the petitioners herein being subsequent purchasers of ..... .p5 order passed by the custodian of enemy property for india under section 8 and 12 of the enemy property act 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the act). ext.p5 is in different parts. the first part contains a certificate dated 21/7/2008 issued under section 12 of the act, which inter alia states that 1/3rd share of immovable property in r.s.no.18/2 of .....

Govinda Pillai Gopala Pillai Vs. Aiyyappan Krishnan

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1957Ker10

..... ext. i is not affected by the rule and that the conclusion of the lower court to that effect has to be sustained.4. section 52 of the transfer of property act, 1882. reads as follows:'during the active prosecution in any court having authority in british india or established beyond the limits of british india by the governor-general in ..... made in the interval between the return of the plaint and its presentation to the proper court is a transfer which is prohibited by section 52 of the transfer of property act') and answered the question in the affirmative.11. in the course of his judgment, he also referred to tangor majhrl v. jaladhar deari, 5 ind cas 691 (cal ) (c) ..... was not instituted until after the mortgage was executed, and therefore the doctrine of lis pendens cannot apply.'14. we take the view that section 52 of the transfer of property act, 1882, as it stands today embodies a correct version of the rule of lis pendens and that it is that rule that should be applied in this case. if .....

Poovancherry thekkeveettil Sankara Narayanan and ors. Vs. State of Ker ...

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2006CriLJ3215

..... stating that he knew the accused persons, however, stated that he had not seen a1 and police coming to the scene of occurrence and a1 taking out and producing the properties. he too was declared hostile and cross-examined. devadas, p.w. 13 stated that accused were his neighbours. he had a jeep in his house. the accused had ..... found from the well belonging to the first appellant, it would not be sufficient proof to connect a1 with the commission of crime, as the deceased had number of enemies. the possibility of someone else committing the murder and throwing the dead body into the well of a1 so as to involve him in the crime, cannot be ruled ..... the recovery in pursuance of the information stated to have been furnished by the accused will not fall under 'discovery' as envisaged under section 27 of the indian evidence act.before arriving at the conclusion as reproduced above, the division bench of this court relied upon a number of supreme court decisions in jaffer hussein dastagir v. state of .....

Muthayan Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

..... petitioners have been named in the f.i.r. produced as annexure i. the offence alleged is one punishable udner section 3(1) of the prevention of damage to public property act, 1984.2. learned counsel for the petitioners points out that there is a practice among the fishermen to collect the sand in the packets and put in the boats when ..... police has registered a crime as evident from annexure i f.i.r. and further investigation is still pending. whether the petitioners are justified or not in doing the alleged act, can be decided only after the investigation. a fair investigation will be conducted by the police. the petitioners are free to agitate the matter at the appropriate stage, if they .....

Kunhamina Umma and ors. Vs. Special Tahsildar and ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1977Ker41

..... attested. as regards ex. a16, it being a gift deed it is required by law-- section 123 of the transfer of property act-- to be attested by two witnesses, but then as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants there is no ..... case that the evidence more or less conclusively establish a clear case of ouster of the other heirs of uppathumma as regards the properties concerned.8. before going into the questions raised in the appeal certain facts which are beyond controversy may be pointed out. uppathumma ..... the real owner also.' there is no antithesis in what is said in 1969 ker lt 121 = (air 1969 ker 222) and in 1968 ker lt 779 = (air 1969 ker 293) (fb) as the lower court seems to think (see also adichan ayyan v karupi, 1975 ..... be open acts of possession with hostile animus to the knowledge of the other co-owners to constitute ouster. the law on the point has succinctly been stated by eradi j., speaking for a full bench of this court in k. cicily v. sulaikha beevi, 1968 ker lt .....

Subramania Iyer Vs. Ammu Alias Madhavi Amma and ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1964Ker218

..... from year to year. we are unable to agree with the reasoning in that case. the learned judges there held that the principle of section 116 of the transfer of property act was applicable as the tenant continued in possession after the period specified viz.5 10 years and therefore it was a case of holding over. we think that even after ..... not holding over, as the tenancy created by ext. a1 was not determined by the landlord by making a demand for surrender. 9. section 116 of the transfer of property act would imply that it is only if a tenant remains in possession after the expiry of the tenancy that the tenant can be said to hold over. in such a ..... therefore, the question is whether there was a contract to the contrary as envisaged in section 106 of the transfer of property act. it is not disputed that the contract to the contrary as contemplated by section 106 of the transfer of property act need not be an express contract; it may be an implied one. the only qualification is that it must be .....

Nature Lovers' Forum represented by Its President M.R. Gireeshkumar Vs ...

Court : Kerala

..... current legal doctrine rarely accounts for such constraints, and thus environmental stability is threatened. historically, we have changed the environment to fit our conceptions of property. we have fenced, plowed and paved. the environment has proven malleable and to a large extent still is. but there is a limit to this ..... would have precedence over the economic interest. the following was laid down in paragraph 48: 48. development and the protection of environment are not enemies. if without degrading the environment or minimising adverse effects thereupon by applying stringent safeguards, it is possible to carry on development activity applying the principles ..... central government. the public interest which induced parliament to make the declaration contained in section 2 of the mines and minerals (regulation and development) act, 1957, has naturally to be the paramount consideration in all matters concerning the regulation of mines and the development of minerals. parliament's policy .....

R.R.N. Ramalinga Nadar Vs. V. Narayana Reddiar

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1971Ker197

..... in the event of loss being caused dueto causes occasioned by events beyondhis control. the only exception to suchabsolute liability is the event of losscaused by act of god or king's enemies.it is finally urged before me by learnedcounsel for the defendant, that the exception applies to the case before me as,according to counsel, any event ..... of 1939. an owner of a transport vehicle other than a pub-lic carrier who uses the vehicle solely for the carriage of goods which are his property or the carriage of which is necessary for the purposes of his business, not being a business of providing transport, is a private carrier. section 2(23) defines ..... or even as to two or more specified points.'9. common carrier is defined in the carriers act 1865 (act iii of, 1865) in these terms:'common carrier denotes a person, other than the government, engaged in the business of transporting for hire property from place to place, by land or inland navigation, for all persons indiscri-minately.'in this .....

P. Subramanian and ors. Vs. Ramachandran and ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1996Ker64

..... residing in a rented building. at the instance of plaintiff, the building in which they were in occupation was available for purchase. plaintiff sent money for purchasing the property in 1965. various amounts were sent by drafts. the fifth defendant was given in marriage in 1952 and for that also the plaintiff incurred expenses. plaintiffs parents were ..... behalf of the plaintiff that ext. a-2 letter showed that even at the time of that letter the mother had been treating the first defendant as an enemy so there could not have been a will executed by them. counsel for the appellants submitted that thailambal was an aged woman and she must have been picking ..... undue influence by defendants 2 and 3 and the testators were not free agents in executing the will. 'undue influence' is defined under section 16 of the indian contract act, which reads as follows :'16. 'undue influence' defined.-- (1)a contract is said to be induced by 'undue influence' where the relations subsisting between the parties .....

FebIn K Xavier Vs. P.N.Unnirajan

Court : Kerala

..... first of all, i may consider the nature of allegations and relief sought for in the complaint. there is no allegations against the accused/ respondent, that his act constituted offence against person or property of the complainant/revision petitioner. in short, there is no crl.r.p.no.1653 of 2013 6 personal grievance at all. the allegation is that the ..... personal interest or motives and such complainant also must come before the court with clean hands. in short, such a right cannot be misused to wreak vengeance against his implacable enemy, by abusing the process of the court.10. going by the complaint, in view of the report filed crl.r.p.no.1653 of 2013 7 by the legal ..... fact that the intention of the revision petitioner is not the public interest but to wreak vengeance and also to make use of the special court for retaliating his personal enemy.13. going by the earlier enquiry reports, it is seen that on the basis of a complaint sent by one mr.a.f.thomas, secretary of kerala police officer .....