The court held that since the legal representatives of the deceased second respondent were not brought on record in the lower appeal, the impugned decision was a nullity and the second appeal was not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed.
Second appeal dismissed without prejudice to the right of the appellant to move the appellate court to reopen the earlier appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/16TH MAGHA, 1937
RSA.No. 1092 of 2004
AS 111/1992 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), FAST TRACK COURT-I MANJERI DATED 25-03-2003 OS 105/1987 OF MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR DATED 21-12-1991
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
KARUIVANTHODI MOIDEENKUTTY'S SON MOIDU, TANALUR AMSOM AND DESOM, IN TIRUR TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)
RESPONDENT(S)RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1. KUNHI MOHAMMED MASTER'S SON POKKATTIL JALEEL JALEEL, TANALUR AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK.
2. VEERAVUNNI'S SON THOTTUNGAL KUNHIMOHAMMED HAJI, TANALUR AMSOM AND DESOM IN TIRUR TALUK.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.K.MOHAMMED FAISAL NAHA
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
R.S.A.No.1092 of 2004
-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 5th day of February, 2016
JUDGMENT
This second appeal is preferred challenging the decision in A.S.No.111 of 1992 on the file of the District Court, Manjeri. A.S.No.111 of 1992 was an appeal preferred challenging the dismissal of O.S.No.105 of 1987, a suit for injunction filed by the appellant. As per the judgment impugned in this appeal, the appellate court confirmed the decision of the trial court.
R.S.A.No.1092 of 2004
2
of the said appeal. In so far as the the legal representatives of the deceased second respondent were not brought on record in A.S.No.111 of 1992, the impugned decision is a nullity and the second appeal preferred against the said decision is not maintainable.
In the result, the second appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the appellant to move the appellate court to reopen A.S.No.111 of 1992. All the interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
smm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal is maintainable when the legal representatives of a deceased respondent were not brought on record in the previous appeal.
KARUIVANTHODI MOIDEENKUTTY'S SON MOIDU
KUNHI MOHAMMED MASTER'S SON POKKATTIL JALEEL JALEEL
VEERAVUNNI'S SON THOTTUNGAL KUNHIMOHAMMED HAJI
P.B.Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
