Peerukannu v. Abdul Samad
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court dismissed S.A. No. 289 of 2002 for default, ruling that the appeal could not proceed as the appellant had expired and legal heirs showed no interest.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed for default due to expiration of appellant.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/28TH POUSHA 1938
SA.No. 289 of 2002 (A)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE IN AS.202/1992 of DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 13-07-2001
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE IN OS.419/1982 of II ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 28-10-1991
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF::
PEERUKANNU, S/O. ADIMAKANNU, CHEDIVILAKATHU VEEDU, SREEMOOLAM LAKE MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.THALIYAL R.GOPAKUMAR SRI.A.K.HARIDAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS::
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for default when the appellant died prior to being served with notices.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Peerukannu, S/O. Adimakannu
- respondent
Abdul Samad, S/O. Mohammed Moideen
Coram
K. Harilal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court