Benny v. Chandrakanthan
Case brief
What is this about?
This second appeal was found meritless as no substantial question of law arose. The High Court dismissed the appeal without admitting it, holding that the suit challenging a compromise decree was barred by law and estoppel.
What did the court decide?
The appeal is dismissed without admission. All interlocutory orders are vacated and pending applications dismissed. Trial court directed to expedite delivery of property within ten days.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 15TH POUSHA, 1945
RSA NO. 482 OF 2020
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 23.3.2018 IN OS
440/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT,KATTAPPANA
AS 18/2018 OF SUB COURT,KATTAPPANA
APPELLANT/ APPELLANT / PLAINTIFF:
BENNY AGED 53 YEARS S/O.OOMMEN MATHAI, KAKKATTUKADA BHAGAM, KANCHIYAR KARA, KANCHIYAR VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. V.N.SANKARJEE SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN SRI.M.M.VINOD SMT.M.SUSEELA SMT. KEERTHI B. CHANDRAN SHRI.VIJAYAN PILLAI P.K. SHRI.R.UDAYA JYOTHI
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a substantial question of law arises to maintain a second appeal when the appeal pertains to the maintainability of a suit setting aside a compromise decree.
Whether the Court must admit the second appeal for hearing when it finds no substantial question of law involved.
Whether the appellant is estopped from challenging a compromise decree after having benefited under the terms of the settlement.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
BENNY
- respondent
CHANDRAKANTHAN
Coram
A. BADHARUDEEN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court