Ramakrishnan v. Rajan
Case brief
What is this about?
A regular second appeal was dismissed for default as the counsel for the appellants submitted they had no instruction despite repeated attempts by the court to seek it.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
RSA.NO. 898 OF 2003 (F)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27-05-2003 IN A.S. NO. 140/1998 OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29-08-1998 IN O.S. NO.193/1996 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHITTUR
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:
- 1 RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. NARAYANAN KUTTY EZHUTHASSAN, PULIKKAL VEEDU, VITHANASSERY, NEMMARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
- 2 VELU, S/O. NARAYANAN KUTTY EZHUTHASSAN, -DO- -DO3 RUGMINI, W/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, -DO- -DO-
BY ADVS.SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Ramakrishnan
- appellant
Velu
- appellant
Rugmini
- respondent
Rajan
- respondent
Radha
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court