Kerala High Court
SA/34/1980 of PARVATHY PILLAI KAMALAMMA PILLAI Vs KUNJAN NADAR KUTTAN NADAR on 23 January 1980
e h ononrcl>li Ur.Just ice V.Khalid Wednesday the 23rd Janu er, 1980/3rd Magha, 1901 , . SA.No .3( ot 1980E # 553/3- 3za:.l, Tot ./\.S.737/77 <'f Jlistrict court, Tr,i-iand:tum O.S.?56 -c,,l Hl73 of 'lunsitt court, Neyyattinkara Parvathy Pillai Kamalamma fi llat, Vetta.mangalathu
"
Prfl sent:
Tb e h ononrcl>li Ur.Just ice V.Khalid
Wednesday the 23rd Janu er,1980/3rdMagha, 1901
,. SA.No .3( ot 1980E--# 553/3 3za:.l, Tot ./\.S.737/77<'f Jlistrict court,Tr,i-iand:tumO.S.?56-c,,l Hl73 of 'lunsitt court,Neyyattinkara ParvathyPillai Kamalamma fi llat, Vetta.mangalathuKunnathuvi lakathu Bungalow,Maranallo••rdesom· and village bySri.P.Gopala~ri ahnan Nair r--e-- --spo-- .n ·-le--n--t--e- -·- r---,[0]s-p-~o-r-d-e--n-t-s- --- d---ef-e-nd--a-n-t-s-
1.Kunjan Nadar Kut tan Nadar,KalluvilakathuPutheve,edu ,Thn la:val· des om,PalIichal village
2.Kunjan Nadar UnniNedar of do
3.Kunjan Nadar Arjunan Nadar of do...4.MalanNadarGovindan Nadar,Valiyavilakathu Fdavzhiyarikathu' veedu, Thalayal desom,Pal lichal •.
, UmminiNadnr Ponnian Nad~r, ,\yaniyarathala....Kizhkkari kathu veedu, do des om . 5 •.
U! l!liniNadar, C/o Suku111aran Nadar,Plavi lakathuNa?athattu veedu, do desom,Kochukrishnnn NadarLeksbmanan Nad,ir, TbekkekalJvi lakom' puthen veedu·, do desom .· 6 10
7.8..
8..Raman .Nadar Janardhanan Nadar,ValiyavilakathuVndakkathu Veedu, do desnm·9.LekshmiPillaiChel lammaPillai, Nedungottukona1Pa ilaravi'la Mela'uthen veedu,Pallichal dsom10. KrJsbna, ;ptJ lat Sa.sidh-aran ?tair,Pandaravi lakathllMele puthen veedu,,, do deso!11 _'5 NelakantanKunjukrishnan.Kundarathalakal veedu<l-,,-.:{r3.· •• '··-12. Thomas Wi Ison, Pandaravila Kizhakkethttu purayyi-· ·•Pallihal, de s-o•
13.Kochan Johnson of do
14.JohnThomnson,PalottukonamF..davilaknthu Puthen veedu of do Tlis second appeal having come up forsdmis sion on 23-1-80 the court. on the sa! e day de-1 ivered the :following:
JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 2
The question of law pressed in this secondappea I is that the coui ts below gro·ssly erred inrelying uponFx-B5 order in non-suiting the nlaintiff'.• That is an order pass@d by the concerned authorityunder sec.29 of the K.L.R,et.It is stated thatthe si!order waspassed without tmpleading theplafntiff.The order is said tobe bad for thisre·son and for violation of natural justice.Theforwardcontesting defendant& put t.11nri a case of tenancybased on Ex-B5.This plea of tenancy was referredto the lana tribunalwho returned a finding in favourofthe respondents.This wns confirmed in appeal.The lea of the counsel is that a decree tor redemptishould be passed ignoringEx-5.There is no pleainthe snit to. set asJdeEx-B5 on any gr onjds knownto law..~ccording to me· it will he bighly improperandirregular to pass a decree ignoring E5.The'-.plaintiffs remedy is to getEx5 declaredinoperative and not bindingon him in Appropriate )..
~
'.preceedlnga.I •·not sattafted that any subatantia ·qttf"Sti n nof law ariaei in th! • seeend appeal.
7ismissed
tr• copy
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…