Sukumaran v. Santha
Case brief
What is this about?
Second Appeal filed by appellants challenging a decree for recovery of damages for trespass and mischief. The High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' findings on evidence of damage.
What did the court decide?
Second Appeal dismissed; all pending interlocutory applications dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/6TH ASHADHA 1934
RSA.NO. 462 OF 2012 ()
AS.162/2006 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, IRINJALAKUDA O.S. NO.353 OF 2001, PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
1. SUKUMARAN, S/O.KALLIKKATTU KRUSHNAN (PRESIDENT)EDAVILANGU EZHAVA SEVA SANGAM,EDAVILANGU KODUNGALLUR.
2. SREENIVASAN, S/O.THEKKUT GOVINDAKUTTY (MEMBER) EAVILANGU EZHAVASEVA SANGAM,EDAVILANGU,KODUNGALLUR.
3. YATHEENDRADAS, S/O.BAHULEYAN,PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE SREENARAYANAPURAMVILLAGE,KODUNGALLUR.
4. KARTHIKEYAN, S/O.KALLIKKATT APPUKUTTAN,EDAVILANGU,KODUNGALLUR.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is substantial question of law involved requiring decision by the Court.
Whether the evidence regarding trespass, mischief, and quantum of damages is sufficient to sustain the decree.
Whether a mere proof of documents like a scene mahazar is sufficient evidence without the officer deposing to contents.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Sukumaran
- respondent
Santha
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