KATTUKANDI EDATHIL KRISHNAN & Anr. v. KATTUKANDI EDATHIL VALSAN & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 s. 114
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. XX r. 18
Judgment
#6. Once a preliminary decree is passed by the Trial Court, the court should proceed with the case for drawing up the final decree suo motu. After passing of the preliminary decree, the Trial Court has to list the matter for taking steps under Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC. The courts should not adjourn the matter sine die, as has been done in the instant case. There is also no need to file a separate final decree proceedings. In the same suit, the court should allow the concerned party to file an appropriate application for drawing up the final decree. Needless to state that the suit comes to an end only when a final decree is drawn. [Para 33][1135-A-C] A B C D E F G H 1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others (1978) 3 SCC 527: [1979] 1 SCR 1; S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan alias Andali Padayachi and Others (1994) 1 SCC 460; Tulsa and Others v. Durghatiya and Others (2008) 4 SCC 520 : [2008] 1 SCR 709; Challamma v. Tilaga and Others (2009) 9 SCC 299 : [2009] 11 SCR 831; Madan Mohan Singh and Others v. Rajni Kant and Another (2010) 9 SCC 209 : [2010] 10 SCR 30; Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755 : [2013] 14 SCR 101920 – relied on.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.