Jumon v. Beena
Case brief
What is this about?
Second Appeal against a decree for recovery of advance money. Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the first appellate court's finding that the appellant was not ready and willing to perform the contract was justified based on evidence and did not involve any substantial question of law.
What did the court decide?
Second Appeal dismissed and pending Interlocutory Applications also dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/15TH SRAVANA 1934
RSA.NO. 992 OF 2012 ()
AS.258/2007 OF SECOND ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR OS.19/1997 OF THIRD ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
JUMON, S/O.MATHEW, CHIRAKKEKARAN HOUSE, KOTTAPPURAM AMSOM THRISSUR VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BEAULA MATHEW D/O.MATHEW,RESIDING AT CHIRAKKEKARAN HOUSE KOTTAPPURAM AMSOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK.
BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SHRI S.V. BALAKRISHNA IYER BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.N.AJITH SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
BEENA, D/O.PALISSERY PORINCHU AND W/O.KOCHU PAUL CHIRAKKEKARAN HOUSE,KIZHAKKUMAPTTUKARA DESOM CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK,PIN-680020.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding of the first appellate court regarding the appellant's lack of readiness and willingness to perform the contract was perverse or against evidence.
Whether the rise in the value of the property, along with other factors, was sufficient grounds to deny specific performance.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Jumon S/O Mathew
- respondent
Beena D/O Palissery Porinchu
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