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

1951 Supreme(Ker) 28

KUNHI RAMAN, SUBRAMONIA.IYER
Bappu Meerakutty – Appellant
Versus
Koyan Meerakutty – Respondent


Judgment :-

1This is an appeal filed against the decree, based on a compromise, passed by the court below. The

petitioner for compromise filed in the court below was signed by the plaintiffs as also by defendants 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8. The appellants before this court are defendants 1 to 4, 6, 8 and 9. Of these, defendants, 1, 3 and 8 are signatories to the compromise petition. It is stated that these signatories resiled from the compromise subsequent to the filing of the petition in Court. Regarding the other appellants, except the 9th defendant, their names were struck off the array of parties by the court below. Mr. P. Govindhan Nair on behalf of the respondents takes a preliminary objection that the decree being one passed on a compromise S.76(3) of the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure (corresponding to S.96(3) of the Indian Code), prohibits this appeal. The answer to this objection given by Mr. Narayana Pillai on behalf of the appellants is that in a case where certain signatories to the compromise petition have resiled from the compromise the provisions of S.76(3) will not be attracted. The question as to whether, when there is a compromise and the court acts upon it and passes a




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