Jose v. Thomas
Case brief
What is this about?
In a second appeal concerning a suit for realization of security deposit, the High Court held that the plaintiff could not claim the full amount as he failed to return the motor or pay its agreed value of Rs.33,000/- to the defendant.
What did the court decide?
The decree was modified so that the plaintiff is entitled to recover only Rs.17,000/- instead of the full Rs.50,000/- granted by the courts below.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/14TH PHALGUNA, 1937
RSA.No. 943 of 2010 ( )
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS 112/2009 of SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR OS 592/2001 of MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANT/(APPELLANT/DEFENDANT):-
JOSE, S/O.THOMAS, MUNDATTUCHUNDAYIL HOUSE, PAREEKANNY DESOM, NERIYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT CHENGALAM KARA, KOTTAYAM TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SMT.N.ANJALI SRI.MAHESH MENON
RESPONDENT/(RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF) :
THOMAS, S/O.DEVASSY, KALLELY HOUSE, CHALAKUDY DESOM, EAST CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE MUKUMDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680307.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the full security deposit without returning the motor entrusted to him at the time of the lease arrangement?
Whether the disputed agreement between the parties regarding the purchase and value of the motor can be inferred from the pleadings?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
JOSE, S/O.THOMAS
- respondent
THOMAS, S/O.DEVASSY
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