Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
ASHIYA UMMAL – Appellant
Versus
S.N. SATHY – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's jurisdiction in second appeal (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. validity of the compromise decree (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. substantial questions of law raised (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. legal standards for compromise decrees (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. effects of a party accepting a compromise (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. final ruling on appeal dismissal (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT
The 1st defendant in O.S.No.108/1999 on the files of Munsiff Court, Punalur, who is aggrieved by the decree and judgment in A.S.No.10/2020 dated 31.01.2023 on the files of the Sub Court, Punalur, assails the same in this Second Appeal filed under Order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure . The 1st defendant in the above Suit is the appellant and the plaintiff and other defendants are the respondents in this case. 2. I shall refer the parties in this appeal with reference to their status before the trial court, as `plaintiff’ and `defendants’hereafter for easy reference.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/1st defendant as well as the learned counsel appearing for S.N.Sathy, the original plaintiff in the above Suit.
4. Perused the judgments under challenge and the documents p
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
