John v. Subhadra
Case brief
What is this about?
This land acquisition appeal was dismissed only for default due to the absence of representation from the appellants. The court noted the appeal was directed against an award favoring the respondents and probable disbursement of the disputed amount.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed as per defect only due to default in filing representation.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932
LA.App..No. 170 of 2001 --------------------------LAR.20/1993 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA ....................
APPELLANT(S)CLAIMANTS 4 TO 10:
- JOHN, S/O THOMAS, KOTHALIKUNNEL HOUSE, THEKKATHIPPARA, KALLARKUTTY, ADIMALY.
2. JOSEPH, S/O THOMAS, KOTHAIKUNNEL, THODUPUZHA [DIED. LRs impleaded]
- DEVASSIA, S/O THOMAS, KOTHAIKUNNEL, THODUPUZHA.
- MATHAI, S/O THOMAS, KOTHAIKUNNEL, THODUPUZHA.
- ALEYKUTTY, W/O MATHEW, KOONNANAL HOUSE, MARIYAPURAM P.O., IDUKKI.
- ANNAKUTTY, W/O KUNJOONJU, MATHAYIL HOUSE, VELLAYAMKUDI P.O., KATTAPPANA.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
JOHN, S/O THOMAS
- appellant
JOSEPH, S/O THOMAS (DIED)
- appellant
DEVASSIA, S/O THOMAS
- appellant
MATHAI, S/O THOMAS
- appellant
ALEYKUTTY, W/O MATHEW
- appellant
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court