K K KANNAN Vs. KOOLIVATHUKKAL KARIKKAN MANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for both sides.

(2.) Legal representatives of defendant No.l and defendant No.2 are the appellants before us. Even at the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out that the High Court while reversing the concurrent decisions of both the Courts below, committed an error in not adhereing the mandates prescribed in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Apart from the said contention, he also pointed out that the High Court went wrong in interfering with the factual decisions arrived at by both the Courts.

(3.) With regard to the first contention in para 3 of the impugned judgment, the High Court has merely referred the grounds A to F raised in the memorandum of second appeal as substantial questions of law for consideration. After referring the same, the High Court without considering and formulating the substantial question of law allowed the second appeal and set aside the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below.