Daisamma v. Varghese
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal against dismissal of suit for declaration of title. Second judge held there was no violation of CPC Rule 27 in denying additional evidence; sale deed found to be sham not acted upon due to lack of plaintiff evidence and tax payment by respondents.
What did the court decide?
Suit dismissed; appeal allowed to maintain findings below; no cost awarded.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931
SA.No. 710 of 1996(A)
--------------------AS.107/1994 of SUB COURT, PALA OS.246/1984 of MUNSIFF COURT, PALA
APPELLANT(S)/appellant/PLAINTIFF:
DAISAMMA, W/O.ALEX, CHUVAPPUMKAL, BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE AND KARA, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
- VARGHESE, S/O.THOMMAN, PAIKAKKAVUMKAL, POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether rejection of application to receive additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC violates principles requiring necessary documents for satisfactory disposal of appeal?
Whether courts below were justified in holding that the sale deed was a sham transaction without proper pleading and adequate evidence regarding the plea?
Whether courts below placed the burden of proof on the wrong shoulders while disposing of the case?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
DAISAMMA
- respondent
VARGHESE
- respondent
ROSAMMA
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court