MADHAVAN NAIR Vs. RAMANKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The trial court had decreed the suit for recovery which had been filed by the respondent. On appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the said decision whereupon a second appeal was filed by the respondent herein before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Hence this appeal by special leave.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel, Shri Paikeday for the appellant that in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court was required to frame a substantial question of law which was not done in the instant case. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, Shri K. Sukumaran for the respondent that there was a State amendment made in Section 100 in Kerala wherein a new clause (d) was inserted to the effect that the finding of the lower appellate court on any question of fact material to right decision of the case on the merits being in conflict with the finding of the court of first instance on such question would be maintainable. He, therefore, submits that as the judgment of the lower appellate court was that of reversal, the High Court had the jurisdiction to go into the facts and come to an appropriate conclusion thereon.