Geetha v. G.Darmapalan
Case brief
What is this about?
Regular second appeals arising from concurrent decrees for declaration of title and recovery of possession were dismissed for lacking substantial questions of law; the allegations of fraud were found vague and unproved.
What did the court decide?
Appeals dismissed without admission.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1945
RSA NO. 669 OF 2023
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 31.07.2023 IN A.S.NO.87/2019 ON THE
FILES OF THE SUBORDINATE COURT, MAVELIKKARA ARISING FROM THE DECREE AND
JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2018 IN O.S.NO.34/1988 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF
COURT, KAYAMKULAM
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 GEETHA AGED 59 YEARS, D/O.SARASAMMA, GEETHA BHAVANAM, PUTHIYAVILA MURI, KANDALLUR VILLAGE, PIN - 690531
2 MINI AGED 53 YEARS, D/O.SARASAMMA, GEETHA BHAVANAM, PUTHIYAVILA MURI, KANDALLUR VILLAGE, PIN - 690531
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal raised any substantial question of law warranting admission under Section 100 CPC?
Whether the plea of fraud regarding purchase certificates was sufficiently pleaded and proved?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Geetha
- appellant
Mini
- appellant
Vijayakumar
- appellant
Thampan
- respondent
G. Darmapalan
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court