Allowed

P.C Mathew v. Union Bank of India

Kerala HC20 Jul 2022FAO (RO)/154/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed an appeal against a remand order. It held that the first appellate court erred by remanding the matter to treat a loan as agricultural based on a manager's oral admission. The court ruled judges cannot dictate contract terms or create equitable mortgages from oral statements during trial. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the remand order.

What did the court decide?

The order of remand by the first appellate court was set aside, and the matter was returned to the first appellate court for further proceedings.

P.C Mathew Vs Union Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20^th DAY OF JULY 2022 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

FAO (RO) NO. 154 OF 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2018 IN AS No.151/2016 OF ADDITIONAL

¶7

DISTRICT COURT, OTTAPALAM

¶8

JUDGMENT DATED 23.03.2016 IN OS No.316/2012 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM

¶9

APPELLANT/1st RESPONDENT/1 st DEFENDANT:

¶10

P.C MATHEW, AGED 48 YEARS,

¶11

S/o P.A.CHACKO, PATHINETTIL HOUSE, PALAKKAYAM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS. MOHANAKANNAN K

¶13

A.R. PRAVITHA

¶14

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 8/PLAINTIFF AND SUPPLEMENTAL

¶15

DEFENDANTS 3 TO 9:

¶16

1 UNION BANK OF INDIA, POTTASSERY BRANCH, POTTASSERY, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678598, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶17

2 P.C.THOMAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/o P.A.CHACKO, PATHINETTIL HOUSE, PALAKKAYAM AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 591.

¶18

3 P.C.JOSEPH, AGED 62 YEARS, S/o P.A.CHACKO, PATHINETTIL HOUSE, PALAKKAYAM AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 591.

¶19

4 SMT.MARIYAMMA, AGED 47 YEARS, D/o P.A.CHACKO,PATHINETTIL HOUSE, PALAKKAYAM AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 591.

¶20

5 SMT.RAICHAL, AGED 44 YEARS, D/o P.A.CHACKO, PATHINETTIL HOUSE, PALAKKAYAM AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 591.

¶21

FAO (RO) No.154 of 2018

¶22

¶23

6 SMT.VALSAMMA, AGED 42 YEARS, D/o P.A.CHACKO, PATHINETTIL HOUSE, PALAKKAYAM AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 591.

¶24

7 SMT.KUNHOONHAMMA, AGED 42 YEARS, D/o P.A.CHACKO, PATHINETTIL HOUSE, PALAKKAYAM AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 591.

¶25

8 KUNHAMMA, AGED 40 YEARS, D/o P.A.CHACKO, PATHINETTIL HOUSE, PALAKKAYAM AMSOM DESOM, (DELETED) MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 591.

¶26

(DELETED THE NAME OF THE 8^th RESPONDENT FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT TEH RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 05.12.2018 IN I.A No.4/2018)

¶27

R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL ADV. A.S.P.KURUP

¶28

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER - REMAND ORDER HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

FAO (RO) No.154 of 2018

¶30

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

After taking evidence and after the trial of the suit

¶33

on the disputed issues, the suit was dismissed as time barred overlooking the deposit of title deed so as to create an equitable mortgage over the property. In the first appellate stage, it was found that the suit is within time and remanded the matter for the purpose of treating the loan facility as an agricultural loan based on the alleged admission made by the bank officer who was examined as PW1. The first appellate court has committed a serious error while remanding the matter to the trial court for the said purpose. It is not within the domain of either the trial court or the first appellate court to dictate any terms other than the one agreed upon by the parties. The oral admission made by the bank Manager while in the box that agricultural loan facility can be extended to the party will not form part of the terms of contract agreed into by the parties. Further, when the parties proceeded

¶34

with the suit fully knowing the dispute involved and

¶35

¶36

FAO (RO) No.154 of 2018

¶37

tendered evidence, it is not permissible for the first appellate court to order remand in a routine manner so as to consider the issues involved. The legal position has been settled by this Court in Gopalakrishnan and Another v. Ponnappan and others [2021 (5) KHC 548]. Hence, the order of remand is set aside. The parties shall appear before the first appellate court on 17.08.2022 to proceed further in the matter.

¶38

The appeal will stand allowed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

P.C Mathew v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.C Mathew v. Union Bank of India

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

Sheeja Vs K.Gopalakrishna Pillai

Rajendran Pillai Vs K.Gopalakrishna Pillai

Moosa Vs Veeran Haji

Leelamma Vs Ponnamma Thomas

C.S.Samuel Vs a.v.Varghese

Raghavan Pillai Vijayan Pillai Vs Venkatachala Sharma