Kerala High Court
Meethalepanayullathil Abdulla vs Premanandan on 18 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 29TH MAGHA,1942
Ex.FA.No.43 OF 2014
AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A NO.1375 OF 2009 IN I.A NO.07 OF 2005 IN
OS No.48/2001 DATED 13-06-2014 OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT,
VADAKARA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MEETHALEPANAYULLATHIL ABDULLA,
S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 55,CHETTIAMVEETTIL, PARAMBIL
DESOM,VADAKARA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS-PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT:
1 PREMANANDAN,
S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, RESIDING AT THIRUVATHIRA,CHORODE
P.O., VADAKARA TALUK, PIN- 673 106.
2 MOIDEEN,
S/O.ABDULLAH, MEETHALEPANAYULLATHIL, PONMERI AMSOM,
PARAMBIL DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK,
PIN- 673 101.
(DIED)
3 ADDL. R3- MAYANKUTTY,
S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
MEETHALEPANAYULLATHIL, PUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE,
PONMERIPARAMBIL.P.O., VILYAPALLI VIA , PIN -673 542.
4 ADDL. R4- KUNJAYISHA,
D/O.MOIDEEN, AGED ABOUT 46YEARS,
MEETHALEPANAYULLATHIL, PONMERIPARAMBIL.P.O.,
VILYAPALLI VIA, PIN -673 542.
Ex.FA.No.43/2014 2
5 ADDL R5- KHADEEJA
W/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 75,MEETHALEPANAYULLATHIL HOUSE,
PONMERIPARAMBIL.P.O., VILYAPALLI VIA, PIN 673 542.
(THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 2ND RESPONDENT ARE
IMPLEADED AS ADDL RESPONDENT 3 TO 5 AS PER ORDER
DATED 25/01/16 IN IA 2488/15.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN CAVEATOR
R1-5 BY ADV. SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM
R2 BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Ex.FA.No.43/2014 3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2021
Issues involved in O.S No.48 of 2001 of Subordinate Judge's
Court, Vadakara has been amicably settled among the parties out of
court and a Compromise Petition as I.A No.01/2021 is filed,
incorporating the terms of settlement, signed by the parties to the
appeal and their respective counsel.
In the above circumstances, FAO stands disposed of in terms
of the Compromise Petition. Compromise Petition shall form part
of the judgment. Half of the court fee shall be refunded to the
appellant.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
JUDGE
JJ
Presented on: fi-01 -2021
o
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT
ERNAKULAM
I.A No. I I
of 202r
in
Ex.F. A No. 43 of 2014
a Meethalepanayullathil Abdulla Applicant/ Appellant
v.
Premanandarr - Respondent/RespondentNo.l
k\ \r
COMPROMISE PETITION FILED LTNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 OF
LLry CODE OF CIVIL
TTD PRO
L) L r\\,vlvLlrwr^-Ltvv. .1908. ^V
\
'/
./ \Rri(
t
.-$in
{
^r^^-l ,fr
).4 f;SU
'4)\\ '-. "+1 I
f ' !
rr ti
prJ 1:,")'Y P.MARTIN JOSE
COLI-NSEL FOR THE APPEI.LANT
) t
'\
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT
ERNAKULAM
I.A No. t'I of 2021
m
Ex.F.A No. 43 of 2014
.Meethalepanayullathil Abdulla,
ilged 60 years, S/o Moideen,
lChettiamveetil House, Appellant
lParambil Desom, Vadakara,
lKozhikode -673 542
v.
lJremanandan, aged ,
ll/o Kunhikannan, Thiruvathira,
Chorode P.O., Vadakara,
l(ozhikode-673 106 Respondent No.1
TI{E CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE" 1908
1. The dispute between the Appellant and Respondent No.l
which is the subject matter of the above Appeal has been settled in
rnediation proceedings. They have agreed to file a compromise petition
in the above Appeal in the following manner and to obtain a disposal of
tlhe Appeal in accordance with the compromise.
Ar
--*M
./rppellant Res
2. The above Appeal arises out of I.A No.I375 of 2009 in I.A
No.7 0f 2005 in o.S No.48 0f 2001 0n the file of the Sub court,
Vadakara. I.A No.1375 of 2009 was a claim petition filed by the
Appellant herein in I.A No.7 of 2005, an Application for deiivery of
property filed by respondent No.l, the decree holder in O.S No.48 of
200L The decree in O.S No.48 of 2001 was in a specific performance
suit filed by Respondent No.l against my father, Moideen, since
deceased. The decree for specific performance became final. I staked the
claim over the decree schedule property contending that the same had
been gifted to me by the judgment debtor as per Doc. No.646l1974 in
SRO, Villappally, a registration copy of which was marked as Ext-Al in
the claim petition. The court below rejected the claim finding that the
Applicant failed to prove valid execution of the gift deed, that it is no{
proved to be a valid Mohammedan gift, that it was sham and nominal
-
I and that the alleged donor, the appellant's father, had continued to be in
possession of the property and that he had not parted with possession.
3. By the comp1qf;tinf.erylWthe Appellant agrees that the
*1A"lu'+*e
order dated l3-06-2014ffi #ffirt below in I.A No.1375 of
2009 rejecting the claim petition is valid and proper, and that no grounds
Appellant
are made out for interference in the Appeal by this Hon'ble court and
that the above Appeal be dismissed. The Appellant has no objection in
respondent No.l obtaining record of delivery, if thought to be necessary
and appropriate, by proceeding with I.A No.7 of 2005, although, actual
possession has been handed over to respondent No.1. Appellant agrees
that Respondent No.l has been put in possession pursuant to the decree.
lPresence of respondents 3 to 5 in the Appeal is unnecessary, they being
not necessary parties to the compromise petition, and an application has 3
treen filed for their deletion from the party array and the same may be
Eganted.
4. It is therefore respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
be pleased to record the above compromise and dismiss the above
l\.ppeal as settled out of court.
Dated this the J$n duy of January , 2020.
(b{[email protected] a
Appellant- Respondent Nfi
Signatures , ,/\
.r{r'-f^"h2".- *,ffiffi*,
Hilffi#" '.)'nrn
o pn*)
c"Y;"\j";W*'plD4:-, rb, *.,Ni; i1;Li''
,<.ln e
fe+
All facts stated above are true and correct.
appettant .fu- Respondent No.1
