Gilroy v. Joy
Case brief
What is this about?
In this second appeal challenging a partition suit final decree, the High Court set aside the appellate court's order directing the first defendant to accept plot No.6. The Court restored the trial court's decision after the first defendant conceded willingness to accept the trial court's plan.
What did the court decide?
Ordered to set aside the impugned judgment of the appellate court and restore the decision of the trial court.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/18TH POUSHA, 1937
RSA.No. 936 of 2009-C
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN A.S.NO.30/2005 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN F.D.I.A.NO.697/2002 IN O.S.NO.85/1998 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANT(S)/1ST AND THE ADDL.5TH RESPONDENTS IN A.S :
1. GILROY, S/O.IYPE, AGED 53 YEARS, RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEE, THOOMULLIL (H), NJARAKKADU, KADAVOOR VILLAGE.
2. JOSE GILROY, S/O.GILROY, AGED 23 YEARS, THOOMULLIL (H), NJARAKKADU, KADAVOOR VILLAGE.
- BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR)
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court's order directing allotment of plot No.6 instead of plot No.4 to the first defendant should be set aside.
Whether the trial court's decision on partition plan accepted by a party is sustainable.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
GILROY
- respondent
JOY
Coram
P.B. SURESH KUMAR
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court