S.Murukan v. Thulaseedharan
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed the second appeal on compromise. The suit was decreed as per the terms of the compromise petition filed by all parties, which forms part of the final decree.
What did the court decide?
The Second Appeal is allowed; impugned judgments and decrees are set aside; the suit is decreed in terms of the compromise.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/24TH ASWINA, 1939
RSA.No. 565 of 2010 (A)
AGAINST JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 20-12-2008 IN AS 5/2004 of PRL.SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 08-02-2002 IN OS 728/1999 of III ADDL. MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/1ST DEFENDANT:
S.MURUKAN, S/O SOMAN ACHARI,
HOUSE NO. KP 11/487, KARIMBUVILA VEEDU, UPANIYOOR DESOM, KALLIYOOR PANCHAYAT, NEMOM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR SRI.R.NARENDRAN NAIR
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal should be decided on merits or be allowed on compromise under Order XXI Rule 3 CPC.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
S. Murukan
- respondent
Thulaseedharan
- respondent
Akunthal
- respondent
Jayan
- respondent
Chandrika
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court