Kerala High Court
V.M.Sugatha Kumari vs Udayakumar on 15 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/25TH POUSHA, 1942
RSA.No.347 OF 2018(G)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.No.5440/2013 IN AS 10/2009
DATED 25-09-2017 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A.No.7321/2007 IN OS 1325/2006 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD.29.11.2008
APPELLANT/REVIEW PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
V.M.SUGATHA KUMARI,
D/O.MADHUKUMARI, AGED 42,
MANNATHARA VADAKKUM MURI PUTHEN VEEDU,
PACHELLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
NOW RESIDING AT DARSANA NIVAS, T.C.36/1609/1,
PERUNTHANNI WARD, PETTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
SRI.V.S.BHASURENDRAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 UDAYAKUMAR,
S/O.UPENDRA PANIKKER,
AGED 55, PORAKKOTTUKONATHUMELE LALITHA MANDIRAM,
PANGODE, VENGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695 523.
2 GOPINATHAN, *
S/O.BAHULEYAN, AGED 75, ANANDA BHAVAN,
PACHELLOOR, THIRUVALLOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT
PRABHALAYOM, PACHELLORE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 027.
* 2nd RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY
AT THE RISK OF THE APELLANT AS PER THE ORDER
DTD.7.3.2019 IN I.A.No.1/2019.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.SURESH KUMAR
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14-01-2021, THE COURT ON 15-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.S.A.No.347 of 2018 & I.A.No.1/2020
2
JUDGMENT
When this RSA came up for admission before this
Court on 20.3.2019, urgent notice before admission to the
respondent by special messenger was ordered. On receipt
of the notice, the 1st respondent entered appearance. The
2nd respondent was deleted from the party array as per
the order dated 07.03.2019 in I.A.No.1/2019.
2. Today, when the RSA has come up for
admission, the learned counsel for the appellant and 1 st
respondent submit that the case is settled between the
parties. They also filed I.A.No.1/2020 under Order XXIII
Rule 3 of the C.P.C. to record the compromise. After
having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
1st respondent, this R.S.A. is admitted.
3. As stated earlier, the 2nd respondent was deleted
from the party array at the risk of the appellant as per
order dated 07.03.2019 in I.A.No.1/2019. However, the
R.S.A.No.347 of 2018 & I.A.No.1/2020
2nd respondent has signed the compromise petition filed
before this Court. Merely because, the 2nd respondent has
also signed the compromise, the same does not invalidate
the compromise between the appellant and the 1 st
respondent. Going by the terms of the compromise it is
clear that the appellant and 1st respondent are the
beneficiaries under the compromise and the 2 nd
respondent is only a signatory therein. In the light of the
above facts, it is not necessary to reject the compromise
filed in the case on technical reasons.
4. The suit is for partition. The prayer in the
operative portion of the compromise petition reads as
follows:-
"It is therefore prayed that a decree be
passed in this appeal allotting as XYQRA 2 A1
to the appellant and granted a decree
showing that the WVYQRA2A1XW is the
property allotted to the plaintiff/appellant
and the property A1FGUTSRA2 is the
R.S.A.No.347 of 2018 & I.A.No.1/2020
property allotted to the 1st Defendant/1st
Respondent in the final decree in
O.S.No.1325/2006 on the file of the
Principal Munsiff Court."
5. In view of the fact that the appellant and the 1 st
respondent settled the dispute out of court and filed a
compromise petition incorporating the terms of the
compromise, it is just and proper to decree the suit in
terms of the compromise.
I.A.No.1/2020 stands disposed of as hereinabove.
The R.S.A. stands disposed in terms of the compromise.
The terms of compromise will form part of the decree.
There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
N.ANIL KUMAR,
JUDGE
skj
yfl
Presented on: t 5l 12l2o2O
BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAIVI
2o2o
""
I*
R.S.A No.347 of 2O18
V.M. Sugatha Kumari Petitioner/Appellant
Udayakumar & another Respondents / Re spondents
t*t V*"t*rt
P\o*^,
dd*t*
COMPROMISE
-h
<t l-
BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA'
ERNAKULAIVI
f
I I.A.No. / o" 2o2O
IN
R.S.A No. 347 OF 2018
PETITIONER/APPellant
V.M. Sugatha Kumari, aged 44 years , D lo Madhukumari
Mannathara Vadakkum Muri Futhen veedu, Pachelloor,
Thiruvananthapuram District, now residing at Darsana Nivas
T.C g6 / L6Og / 1, Perunthanni ward, Petta, Thiruvananthapuram
RESPONDENT / ResPondent
1. Udayakumar, aged 52, S/o Upendra Panikker,
porakkottukonathumele Lalitha Mandiram, ea{[ode,
venganoor P. O, Thiruvananthapuram District, Pin- 695523
2. Gopinanthan, aged 77, Slo Bahuleyan
Ananda Bhavan, Pachelloor, Thiruvallom,
ThiruvananthaPuram District
Now residing at Prabhalayom, Pachellore P'O,
Thiruvan anthaPu t an- 69 50 27
COMPROMISE PETITION UNDITR ORDER 23 RULE 3 C.P.C
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER /APPELLANT V.M Sugatha
Kumari, aged 44 yeaxs, D I o Madhukumari, Mannatharl Muri Puthen
Veedu, Pachelloor, Thiruvananthapuram District, now resldlng\
residigg at
Pobilto'*, lnpp+.r+ W^ R-opon"[r-]"\ffi-
c4v
P*tf*t.
Aau6,'*-lre. bonL
&a[<]
<-c-
Darsana Nivas, T.C / L6O9 / I, Perunthanni Ward, Petta,
Thiruvananthapuram AND RESPONDENT /RESPONDENT (1)
Udayakumar, aged 52, S/o Upendra Panikker,
Porakkottukonathumele Lalitha Mandiram, Panangode, Venganoor
P.O, Thiruvananthapuram District, Pin-695523 artd (2) Gopinathan,
aged 77, S/o Bahuleyan, Ananda Bhavan, Pachelloor, Thiruvallom,
Thiruvananthapuram District, now residing at Prabhalayom,
Pachellore P.O, Thiruvananthapurarn, Pin-695O27 .
1. The appellant and respondents have settled all the disputes involved
in this appeal.
2. As per the finat decree passed in this case, the plot shown as "VWXY"
plot having 898 sq. links is allotted to the appellant /plaintiff for the
way to plaintiff's properly lying on the western side of the "VWXY"
plot. The said "VWXY" plot is shown in red stripped plot in the finat
decree.
3. On the basis of the appellate judgment, the plaintiff claimed
additional land lyrng adjacent to the plot allotted to plaintiff. But tl..e
lower court did not set apart the land claimed and grarrted only
owelty amount. It is challenging that judgement and Decree that this
appeal is filed.
4. Now the appellant and respondents have settled the disputes by
surrendering a portion of the land from the property of respondents
as shown in the plan prepared by both parties, is produced herewith.
The said plan appended to this compromise petition may be made a
part of the judgment in this Appeal and a Decree passed modifying
the Order dated 25.O9.2017 in I.A No. 5440/2OL3.
- J)-
5. The plan appended to this compromise petition be made a part of the
final decree and the final decree in OS No. 1325/2006 modified as
per plan produced herewith. As per this compromise petition the
defendant have surrendered portion shown as XYQRAz Ar and the
plaintiff has surrendered the ATFGUTSRAz to the defendants.
Accordingly all disputes betrveen plaintiff/appellant and
defendants/respondents 1 and 2 settled. The plan prod.uced herewith
be made as part of the decree passed in this Appeal.
It is therefore prayed that a decree be passed in this appeal
allotting as XYQRAz Ar to the appellant and granted a decree
showing that the IWYQRAzATXW is the property allotted to the
plaintiff/appellant and tJle property ATFGUTSRAz is the property
allotted to the l.t Defendant / lst Respondent in the final decree in OS
No. 1325 /2006 on the lile of the principal Munsiff, Court.
Dated this the tffi^yof December 2O2O.
sHtu
Petitioner/Appellant
V.M.Sugatha Kumari
2. Gopinathan /rfr"^ "/-*/-
Advocate for the Respondents
$W-f
lz a?'#[ll'or
lndile$
Lq\a
RYRg
0( s{ .{
+09
p
j5
'tJ
F4
\t
N
\t
,=
i.
TL
d_fr
C'
e,
z
x# UI
a \q
Gf tr
<rL ). ll
$}F}e
I o \(,
ril
z<-t
t
*f!
icfn'31 o\
(o
o U
is=
F,TF Iil
z:
f ss
hut
il|--,Jx P 52
9q
3Fr' oo
ml s
:s
y1s C>
Wrh ;rt7
S
* -b
t,sts.i$i$
T
fl f|
&n rrrrrrfft
el.
&
a- o
?.
@ n
&
