Mohandas v. Sarju
Case brief
What is this about?
This regular first appeal was disposed of by accepting a compromise signed and verified by the counsel of both the appellant and respondent. The court accepted the settlement wherein the respondent foregoed the decree amount. The appeal fee was refunded to the appellant.
What did the court decide?
The appeal was disposed of based on the parties' compromise; the decree in the original suit was removed, and the court fee was refunded to the appellant.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT 0F KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF I:EBRUARY 2022 / 18TH MAGHA, 1943
_RI=A NO. 432 0F 201±
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05/08/2®10 IN OS 805/2002 0F PRINCIPAL SuB COURT, THRISSUR
A_PPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
MOHANDAS, S/0 THAIKKUMPURAKRAL SANRARANKUTTY, PUYYATIIUR VILLAGE & DESOM,CHAVAKRAD TALUK, THRISSUR DIST.
FIN NNN v .v ..rlN
BE_SPONDENT/PLAINTIFFi
SAR,7U, S/0 RALAPLIRATIJ KUNJAYYAPPAN, VENKIDANGU VILLAGE, THOIKKAVU DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DIST, PIN-68®®®1.
BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR CHELUR SRI.RAVE K, PARIYARATH
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a regular first appeal filed under O.S. No. 805/2002 may be disposed of by a compromise signed by the parties.
Whether the court fee paid by the appellant in the appeal is refundable in light of a legal position settled by the Apex Court.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
MOHANDAS, S/0 THAIKKUMPURAKRAL SANRARANKUTTY
- respondent
SARJU, S/0 RALAPLIRATIJ KUNJAYYAPPAN
Coram
P. SOMARAJAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court