Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (2.93 seconds)
Documents citing Santhappu Ali vs Bhaskaran on 12 October, 2004

Mathai vs Joseph on 12 July, 2010

It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that findings entered by court below are not correct. According to the learned counsel in view of Rule 5 of Order XXXIV of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") as amended by Kerala Amendment (vide K.G.No.46 dated 20.11.1990) there is no necessity to pass a preliminary decree followed by a final decree and a composite decree for redemption is permitted and valid. It is also the contention of learned counsel that petitioner was entitled to deposit the mortgage money at any time before mortgagor-mortgagee relationship was terminated either by decree of court or by act of parties and that having not been done, application filed in the year 2009 was well within the time. Reliance is placed on the decision in Santhappu Ali v. Bhaskaran (2005(1) KLT 819). Learned counsel for respondents supported order of the executing court.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document
1