George v. a.D.Gopala Shenoy
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court held an appeal against an observation regarding title, rather than a decree or part of it, to be not maintainable under Sec.96 and Order 41 Rule 1 CPC, citing precedents, and dismissed the appeal.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed as not maintainable.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2012/1ST JYAISHTA 1934
RSA.No. 331 of 2012 () ---------------------AS.357/2008 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM OS.1696/2004 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 1, 2 & 5 IN the APPEAL SUIT & DEFENDANTS 1, 2 & 5 IN the ORIGINAL SUIT:
- GEORGE, S/O.LATE PAILY,AGED 73 YEARS RESIDING AT METTEKATT HOUSE, C.P.UMMER ROAD NEAR AMBEDKAR STADIUM,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682035.
- PRIYAN GEORGE,
S/O.GEORGE,AGED 35 YEARS,RESIDING AT METTEKATT HOUSE C.P.UMMER ROAD, NEAR AMBEDKAR STADIUM ERNAKULAM-682035.
- M.P.THOMAS, S/O.LATE PAILY,AGED 67 YEARS RESIDING AT METTEKATT HOUSE, C.P.UMMER ROAD NEAR AMBEDKAR STADIUM,ERNAKULAM-682035.
BY ADV.SRI.R.PREMCHAND
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal challenging an observation or finding rather than a decree is maintainable under Sec.96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 CPC.
Whether observations regarding title in a prior appellate judgment operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit for recovery of possession.
Whether the appeal is maintainable against the first appellate court's finding on title.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
George v others
- respondent
A.D. Gopala Shenvy
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