Court : Kerala
..... in their written statement with particulars of the structures put up in a schedule was applied for by these defendants through an advocate commissioner, and the report and plan collected thereby through the advocate commissioner was acted upon by the court below to grant a decree as sought for by the defendants in their counter claims holding that the plaintiffs have right over only a portion of three cents identified by the ..... suit with respect to the claim of kudikidappu and decree of injunction on the basis of the right of easement attached to kudikidappu are all matters to be dealt with by the tribunal under the act in accordance with the statutory provisions thereunder and, when the suit was confined to such claim, that alone, it was not maintainable as the civil court cannot adjudicate such claims ..... of law was also formulated for hearing: whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs as framed, and also the reliefs canvassed thereunder, is maintainable in view of the bar under section 125 of the kerala land reforms act, which mandate of an adjudication of any question relating to a claim of kudikidappukaran under section 79a of the above act by the authority named under that act, and as such, is the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs sustainable? ..... sreekumaran nair (1991 (2) klt 751 (fb) contended that the plaintiffs are legally entitled to have ten cents out of a schedule as their kudikidappu holding and the decisions concurrently rendered by both the courts below .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1992CriLJ1644
s. padmanabhan, j.1. appellant sainuddin was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for having murdered his fourteen years old daughter noorjahan. in this criminal appeal filed from jail, he is challenging the conviction and sentence. he engaged his own lawyer. we heard both sides.2. noorjahan was the only child of the appellant and his wife deceased nadeera beevi. she was studying in the nineth standard. these three were the only inmates of parayil puramboke house at pattithanam in ettumanoor village. prosecution case is that on 26-3-1986 at about 9 a.m. inside their residential building, the appellant committed murder of noorjahan by smothering her with a pillow in an attempt to have sexual affair with her. that was at a time when the mother was absent as she went out for work. *3. the plea of the appellant is that he was nowhere in or around the house when his daughter met with tragic end.4. the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. exts. p1 to p11 are the documents proved. ten material objects were identified. no defence witness was examined. the solitary defence document is the case diary contradiction of p.w. 2.5. in this case the decision must rest on circumstantial evidence. the position of law in that connection is now well settled. the prosecution must prove its case by a complete chain of conclusive circumstantial evidence which should not miss any link at all. the cumulative effect of the chain of circumstances should not only be the guilt of the .....
Tag this Judgment!