Babu v. Mary Anto
Case brief
What is this about?
In an appeal against a partition decree, the High Court dismissed the challenge. The appellant claimed Rs. 50,000 paid to a sister for house renovation should be adjusted, but the Court rejected it due to lack of proof regarding the payment and settlement receipt.
What did the court decide?
The regular second appeal was dismissed; all pending interlocutory applications were dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/20TH POUSHA, 1938
RSA.No. 1274 of 2016 (B)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14-06-2016 IN AS 263/2014 of II ADDIIONAL SUB COURT,THRISSUR.
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30-11-2012 IN OS 3498/2010 of II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR.
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
BABU, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.KOOLA ANTONY, LALOOR ROAD, LOVE SHORE LANE, ELTHURUTH, THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.P.T.JOSE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the courts below were justified in rejecting the appellant's claim for adjustment of Rs. 50,000 allegedly paid for house renovation.
Whether the death of a party after the decree raises a question of law in a second appeal.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
BABU
- respondent
MARY ANTO
- respondent
JOLLY XAVIER
- respondent
DARLY SIMON
- respondent
BERLY ANTO
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court