Johnson v. Kumaran
Case brief
What is this about?
In an appeal regarding a suit for money based on an agreement for clay removal, the High Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the quantity of clay removed. Consequently, the suit for recovery of balance consideration was dismissed.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed. No costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1941
RSA.No.730 of 2009
AGAINST THE DECREE & JUDGMENT IN AS 133/1999 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,IRINJALAKKUDA DATED 15-11-2003
AGAINST THE DECREE & JUDGMENT IN OS 875/1996 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,IRINJALAKKUDA DATED 29-03-1999
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
JOHNSON, S/O PUTHENVEETTIL ITTOOP AMBAZHAKKADU DESOM, VADAKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff established the quantity of clay removed to claim balance sale consideration.
Whether a non-expert commissioner's assessment of clay quantity in absence of technical units was admissible.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
JOHNSON, S/O PUTHENVEETTIL ITTOOP AMBAZHAKKADU DESOM
- respondent
KUMARAN, S/O KUNNAPPILLY KOCHAPPAN MAMBRA DESOM
Coram
P. SOMARAJAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court