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

2017 Supreme(Ker) 813

B.KEMAL PASHA
C. K. Gopalan – Appellant
Versus
M. G. Mathew – Respondent


Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :R.D. Shenoy, Sr. Advocate, Legith T. Kottakkal, S. Vinod Bhat, Advocates
For the Respondents:Bechu Kurian Thomas, Senior Advocate

JUDGMENT :

(1) Can the successful party in the outcome in a suit, appeal against an adverse finding in the suit?

(2) Can the acts complained of in this suit, come under public nuisance for complying with the mandatory procedure under Section 91 CPC?

2. Challenging the dismissal of O.S.No.724 of 2010 of the Munsiff’s Court, Kollam by the 1st Additional District Court, Kollam, through the judgment and decree in A.S.No.16 of 2013, the plaintiffs have come up with this Regular Second Appeal.

3. Initially, O.S.No.724 of 2010 was decreed by the Munsiff’s Court, Kollam. The 1st defendant in the suit challenged the judgment and decree through A.S.No.16 of 2013. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff’s Court, and dismissing the suit. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are husband and wife. The 3rd plaintiff is their daughter.

4. According to the plaintiffs, plaintiffs 1 and 2 purchased plaint A schedule property in the year 1985 through three Sale Deeds from the 2nd defendant. In the year 1993, plaintiffs 1 and 2 settled the plaint A schedule property in favour of the 3rd plaintiff through Exhibit-A1 Settlement Deed. When a mistake in the Surv





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

Banarsi VS Ram Phal - 2003 3 Supreme 31: This case qualifies as bad law. The description explicitly states that "The first appellate Court ought not to have... modified the decree... in the absence of cross-appeal or cross objections" and that the "High Court ought to have interfered to correct this error of law." This indicates the appellate court's decision was erroneous and should have been corrected, effectively treating it as reversed or overruled on the point of law regarding modification of decrees without cross-appeal or cross-objections.

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