Joy v. Mary
Case brief
What is this about?
The Kerala High Court allowed a second appeal filed by a defendant in a partition suit. The court held that the First Appellate Court illegally passed a decree without impleading a necessary party, an heir of the deceased intestate. Consequently, the appellate decree was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
What did the court decide?
The appeal was allowed by way of remand; the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court were set aside, and the matter was remanded for consideration afresh.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1945
RSA NO. 1118 OF 2010
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD. 29.11.1997 IN OS.NO.
707/1994 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.5.2010 IN AS 166/2002 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR)
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
JOY, S/O.KUNJUVAREETH
KOLENCHERRY MANI VEETTIL, CHOWWARA KARA, CHOWWARA
VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Did the non-impleadment of Smt.Annies, one of the daughters of Kunjuvareeth, prevent the Courts below in passing an effective decree as provided in Order 20 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Is the absence of a necessary party in a partition suit a fatal defect rendering the decree incompetent?
Whether the First Appellate Court's decree should be set aside and the matter remanded due to material prejudice caused by irregularity?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
JOY
- respondent
MARY
Coram
K. BABU
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court