Raveendran Nambiar Mailyankottu vs Sreenivasan Maliyankottu
2021 Latest Caselaw 21917 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
  WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                        RSA NO. 659 OF 2020
   [AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DTD.18.02.2020 IN AS 9/2018 OF
SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, VADAKARA & O.S.NO.154/2013 OF MUNSIFF
                 COURT, NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE]
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:

          RAVEENDRAN NAMBIAR MAILYANKOTTU,

          S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR ,
          AGED 59 YEARS, TEACHER,
          VALAYAM AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE
          DISTRICT, PIN-673517

          BY ADVS.
          P.B.KRISHNAN
          SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
          SRI.SABU GEORGE
          SMT.B.ANUSREE
          SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER
          SMT.MEERA P.

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

          SREENIVASAN MAILYANKOTTU,
          S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 53, COLLEGE LECTURER,
          MAYILANKOTTU HOUSE, VALAYAM AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA
          TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 517

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
          SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)


     THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

ON 03.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.S.A.No.659 of 2020

                               :-2-:

                            JUDGMENT

This R.S.A. is directed against the judgment and

decree dated 18.02.2020 in A.S.No.9/2018 on the file of the

Sub Court, Vadakara(hereinafter referred to as 'the first

appellate court') confirming the judgment and decree dated

21.12.2017 in O.S.No.154/2013 on the file of the Munsiff's

Court, Nadapuram (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court').

Appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff

in the original suit.

2. The suit was for declaration and consequential

permanent prohibitory injunction. By judgment dated

21.12.2017, the trial court decreed the suit declaring that the

plaintiff has half right and title over the plaint schedule

property and management of the school therein. The trial

court also granted consequential injunction restraining the

defendant from alienating or tranferring the plaint schedule

property and management of the school including the share of

the plaintiff. The defendant carried the matter in appeal.

However, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment R.S.A.No.659 of 2020

:-3-:

and decree of the trial court. Hence, this Second Appeal.

3. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties

settled their differences out of court. I.A.No.1 of 2021

-compromise petition is filed wherein the parties agreed that

the judgment and decree in O.S.No.154/2013 on the file of the

trial court as confirmed in A.S.No.9/2018 on the file of the first

appellate court can be modified and a decree can be passed

in the manner specified in support of the terms in the above

I.A.. This Court has perused the terms of compromise

between the parties. The compromise is legally in order.

Hence the compromise is recorded. I.A.No.1 of 2021 is

allowed.

Resultantly, this Second Appeal is allowed in terms

of the compromise. Modified decree is passed in

supersession of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.154 of

2013 on the file of the trial court as confirmed in A.S.No.9 of

2018 on the file of the first appellate court. The terms of the

compromise will form part of the decree. There will be no

order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand R.S.A.No.659 of 2020

:-4-:

closed. The court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal

shall be refunded to the appellant in accordance with rules.

Sd/-

N.ANIL KUMAR, JUDGE MBS/