Sabu v. Ramayya
Case brief
What is this about?
The appellant challenged decrees granting Rs. 11,500 for injuries sustained in an altercation. The High Court held that the case involved appreciation of facts and evidence rather than a substantial question of law. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed without admission under Section 100 CPC.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1945
RSA NO. 558 OF 2023
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 26.11.2022 IN A.S.NO.173/2019
ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
IRINJALAKUDA AROSE FROM THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2018 IN
O.S.NO.239/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
SABU
AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.MARUTHOLIVEETIL KESAVAN,
VALLATHUVAL DESOM, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
NOW RESIDING AT PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MALAKKAPPARA DESOM,
CHALAKUDY TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680724
BY ADV N.L.BITTO
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
RAMAYYA
AGED 67 YEARS
RETIRED SPECIAL GRADE OFFICER, S/O. SUBAYYA,
RESIDING AT TATA COMPANY LOWER DIVISION,
MALAKKAPPARA VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680724
BY ADVS.
M.R.REENA
P.S.SUJETH(KAR/662/1999)
P.A.ROY(R-714)
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal involves a substantial question of law warranting admission under Section 100 CPC?
Whether the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts regarding liability and quantum of damages require interference?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
SABU
- respondent
RAMAYYA
Coram
A. BADHARUDEEN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court