Dismissed

Shambu Kacheri Yacob v. Kovvapatil Puthiyapurayil Kunhathu

Kerala HC1 Feb 2019RSA/1087/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This regular second appeal was filed to challenge the decrees of the trial court and first appellate court in a suit for recovery of money and injunction. The court held that no substantial question of law arose regarding undisclosed hypothecation or set-off and dismissed the appeal, while directing release of the RC book to the defendant.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The RC Book produced by the plaintiff is released to the defendant.

Shambu Kacheri Yacob Vs Kovvapatil… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 12TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

RSA.No. 1087 of 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 19.10.12 IN AS 48/2005 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 07-04-2003 IN OS 327/1999 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA

¶8

APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:

¶9

SHAMBU KACHERI YACOB, S/O.ABDULLA,53 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT SREEKANDAPURAM AMSOM, KOTTOOR DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE SRI.G.GIREESH

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶12

KOVVAPATIL PUTHIYAPURAYIL KUNHATHU AGED 63 YEARS, D/O.S.P.MOIDEEN, RESIDING AT CHENGALAYI AMSOM, PARIPPAYI DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN

¶14

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

RSA.No. 1087 of 2014 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Aggrieved by the decree and judgment of trial court (Munsiff's Court, Taliparamba) in O.S.No.327/1999 and the first appellate court (Sub Court, Payyannur) in A.S.No.48 of 2005 the defendant came up with this

¶18

second appeal.

¶19

It is a suit for recovery of money and for

¶20

injunction against dismandling a jeep, which is the subject matter of Ext A1 agreement for sale. Agreement for sale was executed for an amount of Rs.95,000/- by which the jeep was given to the defendant by the plaintiff. Only an amount of Rs.30,000/- alone was paid for which there is no dispute. The balance amount of Rs.65,000/- not paid. Hence, the suit for recovery of money and for an injunction. Both the trial court and

¶21

the first appellate court decreed the suit.

¶22

The only question taken up by the appellant is

¶23

court that there was some liability over the vehicle by

¶24

RSA.No. 1087 of 2014 3

¶25

way of hypothecation which was not disclosed at the time of the sale. The original RC Book of the vehicle also was not handed over to the purchaser/defendant. But in the suit, no counter claim was raised and no set

¶26

off was also pleaded. Admittedly, an amount of

¶27

Rs.95,000/- is due to the plaintiff by virtue of Ext A1 agreement. The concurrent finding rendered by both the trial court and the first appellate court, hence deserves no interference. No substantial question of law much less any question of law brought to the notice of this court. Hence, this appeal fails, dismissed.

¶28

During the pedency of the first appeal the RC

¶29

book of the vehicle was produced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff fairly conceded that it can be released to the defendant. On application the RC Book produced by

¶30

the plaintiff may be released to the defendant.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

P.SOMARAJAN, JUDGE

¶33

¶34

// TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE

Shambu Kacheri Yacob v. Kovvapatil Puthiyapurayil Kunhathu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shambu Kacheri Yacob v. Kovvapatil Puthiyapurayil Kunhathu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrika, Vs Aboobacker

Shivan Kutty Vs Chellamma & 3 Others

Kannamma, Vs Velayudhan

Krishnankutty Nair Vs Soman Pillai

Krishnankutty Nair Vs Soman Pillai

Thankachan Vs Gopalan