Mary v. Bashy
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed a second appeal holding that a specific performance decree granted without addressing the mandatory exercise of judicial discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act is non-est in law. The decree was set aside and remanded.
What did the court decide?
Judgment and decree of the lower appellate court set aside. Matter remanded to the lower appellate court to consider discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2015/17TH ASHADHA, 1937
RSA.No.1003 of 2007 (C)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS 285/2006 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 13-09-2007
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 478/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT,ALUVA DATED 31.10.2005
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
MARY, AGED 43 YEARS
D/O. AUTTOKKARAN VEETTIL VAREETH, NEELESWARAM KARA, KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
BASHY, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. CHERUPULLY VELAYUDHAN, NEELESWARM KARA, KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether courts below were justified in granting a decree for specific performance without considering the discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act.
Whether a decree in specific performance is non-est in law if the court fails to exercise judicial discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act.
Whether the lower appellate court should have remanded the matter to the trial court or considered the issue itself.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Mary
- respondent
Bashy
Coram
P. Bhavadasan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court