Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 16731 Ker
Judgement Date : 11 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA,
1943
RSA NO. 1245 OF 2019
AS NOS. 46/2014 & 17/2015 OF SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
OS 204/2012 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR
APPELLANT/S:
1 CHANDRAN,(DIED)(IMPLEADED A2 TO A4)
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O THEKKOTT KUNJANDI, EDAVILANGU VILLAGE,
KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DT. PIN- 680 671.
2 VALSALA
AGED 66 YEARS
W/O.LATE THEKKOTT CHANDRAN,EDAVILANGU VILLAGE,
KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DT. PIN- 680 671.
3 PRADEEP KUMAR
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.LATE THEKKOTT CHANDRAN,EDAVILANGU VILLAGE,
KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DT. PIN- 680 671.
4 DEEPA
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O.LATE THEKKOTT CHANDRAN,EDAVILANGU VILLAGE,
KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DT. PIN- 680 671.
(LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED SOLE
APPELLANT IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.A2 TO A4 AS PER
ORDER DATED 15.07.2021 IN IA.1/2021)
BY ADV A.G.VISWAMBHARAN
RSA NO. 1245 OF 2019
..2..
RESPONDENT/S:
1 PREMAVATHY,
AGED 62 YEARS
W/O. KAITHAVALAPPIL DIVAKARAN, EDAVILANGU
VILLAGE KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISRICT,
PIN- 680 671.
2 DEEPA,
AGED 40 YEARS, D/O. KAITHAVALAPPIL DIVAKARAN,
EDAVILANGU VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR
DISRICT, PIN- 680 671.
3 DIJEESH,
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. KAITHAVALAPPIL DIVAKARAN,
EDAVILANGU VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR
DISRICT, PIN- 680 671.
BY ADV SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA NO. 1245 OF 2019
..3..
JUDGMENT
This RSA is against the judgment and decree dated
29.06.2019 in AS Nos. 46 of 2014 and 17 of 2015
on the file of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda,
arising from the judgment and decree in OS No.
204 of 2012 of the Munsiff Court, Kodungallur.
2. The appellant herein is the appellant in the
first appeal and the defendant in the original
suit. The appellant also filed a counter claim
before the trial court. The suit was filed for
recovery of possession and consequential
mandatory injunction. The trial court granted a
decree in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs
and dismissed the counter claim. Although appeals
were filed challenging the judgment and decree,
they were dismissed confirming the judgment and
decree of the trial court. Hence, this second
appeal.
3. During the pendency of this RSA, the parties were
referred to mediation for resolving the dispute. RSA NO. 1245 OF 2019
..4..
In the course of mediation, they have resolved
their dispute and have agreed to settle the
dispute between the parties by memorandum of
agreement dated 04.08.2021 under Section 89 of
the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Rules 24 and 25
of the Civil Procedure (Alternative Dispute
Resolution) Rules, 2008.
4. On going through the terms of compromise, the
terms are legally in order and there is no legal
bar in accepting the terms of compromise as
agreed to between the parties. Hence, the
memorandum of agreement dated 04.08.2021 is
recorded.
Resultantly, this RSA is decreed in terms of the
compromise. The terms of compromise will form
part of the decree. There will be no order as to
costs. Pending applications, if any, stand
closed.
Sd/-
N.ANIL KUMAR
JUDGE Bka/-
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!