SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(SC) 540

A.M.AHMADI, M.M.PUNCHHI
P. N. Veetil Narayani – Appellant
Versus
Pathumma Beevi – Respondent


Advocates:
G.VISHVANATHA IYER, K.Prasanti, N.SUDHAKARAN, S.Padmanabhan, Sarla Chandra, SHYAMALA PAPPU, V.B.SAHARYA

JUDGMENT

PUNCHHI, J.:—This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and decree dated 16-9-1974 passed by the High Court of Kerala.S. No. 76 of 1974 (reported in AIR 1975 Kerala 91) whereby the High Court reduced the decree of the trial court to one fourth disallowing the remaining three-fourth on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. The plaintiff-appellant herein before us ventures to have the decree of the trial court restored. Since defendant-respondent No. 2, Santu Mohammed Rawther is to meet the established liability, there is an effort on his behalf, though quite belated, to seek leave to cross- object to the partial decree of the suit.

2. The facts giving rise thereto were indeed diverse and varied which got involved in four suits disposed of by the trial court by a common judgment, in the first instance, in April, 1967. Four appeals, were filed by the aggrieved parties before the High Court out of which three were disposed of by a common judgment on 11-9-1972. The fourth appeal arising from O.S. No. 141 of 1965 was allowed granting permission to the plaintiff-appellant herein to amend the plaint so as to base his money suit on the basis of two promissory























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top