Kasinath v. R.Kumaran
Case brief
What is this about?
In a regular second appeal concerning recovery of possession, the Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the appellant failed to satisfy Order VI Rule 4 regarding fraud allegations and found no evidence establishing tenancy status.
What did the court decide?
Second appeal dismissed in limine holding no substantial question of law.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931
RSA.No. 540 of 2009()
--------------------AS.83/2003 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD OS.611/1994 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
KASINATH, S/O. RAMASWAMI PILLAI, CHAVALAKKARA STREET, VADAKKANTHARA POST, KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
R.KUMARAN, S/O. ULAKANATH, HOUSE NO.5-1/1, THERMAL NAGAR, MUTHAYAPURAM VILLAGE, TUTRICORN TALUK, CHITHAMBARANATH DIST., TAMIL NADU.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Ext.A13 is vitiated by fraudulent misrepresentation and undue influence.
Whether the appellant is a tenant entitled to protection under Act 2 of 1965.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
KASINATH
- respondent
R.KUMARAN
Coram
THOMAS P JOSEPH
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court