SMT. SARADA AND ORS. versus MANIKKOTH KOMBRA RAJENDRAN

SMT. SARADA AND ORS. versus MANIKKOTH KOMBRA RAJENDRAN

The appellate court and the High Court erred in not admitting and considering the additional evidence, which was crucial for deciding the case fairly. Appeal allowed and case remitted to the appellate court for proper procedure.

Parties
Appellant: SMT. SARADA AND ORS.; Respondent: MANIKKOTH KOMBRA RAJENDRAN
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 April 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated 4.8.95 of Kerala High Court in S.a. No. 886 of 1990
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Additional Evidence, Collateral Security, Recovery of Possession
Civil Procedure Additional Evidence Collateral Security Recovery of Possession

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SMT. SARADA AND ORS.

Appellant

MANIKKOTH KOMBRA RAJENDRAN

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated 4.8.95 of Kerala High Court in S.a. No. 886 of 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellate court ought to have admitted additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
  2. 2 Whether sale was a collateral security for a loan

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court and the High Court erred in not admitting and considering the additional evidence, which was crucial for deciding the case fairly. Appeal allowed and case remitted to the appellate court for proper procedure.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and decree of appellate court as well as High Court set aside
  • Appeal remitted to the appellate court to follow procedure indicated and dispose of the appeal according to law