Sulochana v. Rugmini
Case brief
What is this about?
Second appeal in a suit for recovery of advance payment and rescission of an agreement. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant could not convey title over the entire property as required by the agreement, making rescission lawful.
What did the court decide?
None; the appellant's appeal was dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/22ND ASWINA, 1936
SA. No.571 of 2001 (B)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN AS 133/1993 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 16-01-2001 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 38/1990 of ADDL.SUB COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 25-03-1993
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
SULOCHANA, W/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAN, ERICHERY THEKKE DESOM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH
RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
1. RUGMANI, W/O. LATE NATESA MUDALI, MANIKUTTY HOUSE, VADAKKETHARA, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUKL (DIED. LEGAL HEIRS IMPLEADED).
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to forfeit the advance amount paid by the respondent due to her inability to convey absolute title to the entire property.
Whether the agreement allowing sale of only the appellant's share justifies rescission given the plaintiff paid for the entire property.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Sulochana
- respondent
Rugmani
Coram
A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court