Kerala High Court
Chacko Alias Babu vs Mercy Benjamin And Others on 30 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA,
1943
RSA NO. 694 OF 2010
AS 48/2003 OF DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
OS 576/1994 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT/1ST DEFENDANT:
CHACKO ALIAS BABU, S/O REV.C.CHACKO,
POWER TONE, T.C. 16/494, KOCHAR ROAD,,
EDAPPAZHANJI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 14.
BY ADV SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS 2-4 & RESPONDENTS 3-5/ADDL.
PLAINTIFFS 2-4 & DEFENDANTS 3-5:
*1 MERCY BENJAMIN,W/O LATE REV.BENJAMIN (DELETED)
MOOTHAMPACKAL HOUSE, EDAYARANMULA MURI AND,
VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK-689114
2 ANISH BENJAMIN, S/O.LATE REV.BENJAMIN
MOOTHAMPACKAL HOUSE, EDAYARANMULA MURI AND,
VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK-689114
*3 PRIYA BENJAMIN,D/O.LATE REV.BENJAMIN (DELETED)
MOOTHAMPACKAL HOUSE, EDAYARANMULA MURI AND,
VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK-689114
*4 MARIAMMA MATHEW,W/O REV.DR.K.P.MATHEW (DELETED)
KARIMPARA MANNIL, MANJADI P.O., THIRUVALLA-
689115
*5 ELIZABETH PUNNOOSE, (DELETED)
W/O.REV.PUNNOOSE CHERIYAN, MANGALATH HOUSE,
CHELAKOMPU, KARUKACHAL-689121
RSA Nos. 694 & 695 of 2010
..2..
*6 DR.P.SAMUEL, S/O.LATE REV.C.CHACKO (DELETED)
PALLATHU HOUSE, VENMANI P.O.,
CHENGANNOOR-689121
* R1 & R3-R6 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY,
ALLOWING IA NO.1/2021, AS PER JUDGMENT DATED
30.11.2021.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.A.RAJAN
SMT.E.SHEENA
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 30.11.2021, ALONG WITH RSA.695/2010, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA Nos. 694 & 695 of 2010
..3..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021/9TH AGRAHAYANA,
1943
RSA NO. 695 OF 2010
AS 49/2003 OF DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
OS 711/1994 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
CHACKO ALIAS BABU, S/O.REV.C.CHACKO
POWER TONE, T.C.16/494, KOCHAR ROAD,,
EDAPPAZHANJI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -14.
BY ADV SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS 2 & 4-10 & LRs OF 3RD DEFENDANT/
DEFENDANTS 2, 4-7 & 10-12:
*1 ROSAMMA CHACKO, (REMOVED)
W/O.LATE P.I.CHACKO, PALLATHU HOUSE, VENMONY
P.O., CHENGANNOOR.
*(THE FIRST RESPONDENT IS REMOVED FROM THE
PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER
ORDER DATED 18.12.2019 IN IA.1/2019.)
2 MARIAMMA MATHEW, W/O.P.M.MATHEW
VARATHARA PALLATHU PUTHENTHARAYIL, NIRANAM P.O.,
KADAPRA, THIRUVALLA.
3 MERCY BENJAMIN, W/O.LATE REV.BENJAMIN
MOOTHAMPACKAL HOUSE, EDAYARANMULA MURI AND
VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK.
RSA Nos. 694 & 695 of 2010
..4..
4 VARUGHESE BENJAMIN ALSO KNOWN AS
ANISH BENJAMIN, S/O.LATE REV.BENJAMIN,,
MOOTHAMPACKAL HOUSE, EDAYARANMULA MURI,,
KOZHENCHERRY TALUK.
5 PRIYA BENJAMIN DO.LATE REV.BENJAMIN
MOOTHAMPACKAL HOUSE, EDAYARANMULA MURI AND
VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK.
6 LATHA MARY VARUGHESE, D/O.LATE M.V.VARGHESE,
MOOTHAMPACKAL HOUSE, EDAYARANMULA MURI AND
VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK.
7 JIJI VARGHESE, D/O.LATE M.V.VARUGHESE
MOOTHAMPACKAL HOUSE, EDAYARANMULA MURI,,
KOZHENCHERRY TALUK.
8 SUDHA ELIZABETH VARGHESE,
D/O.LATE M.V.VARUGHESE, MOOTHAMPACKAL HOUSE,
EDAYARANMULA MURI, KOZHENCHERY TALUK.
9 PONNUMOL, W/O.M.V.SAMUEL,
MOOTHAMPACKAL HOUSE, EDAYARANMULA MURI,
KOZHENCHERY TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT VIJAYA
BHAVAN, HIMAI NAGAR-6, JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT.
10 VARGHESE KNOWN AS VIJI, S/O.M.V.SAMUEL,
MOOTHAMPACKAL HOUSE, EDAYARANMULA MURI,
KOZHENCHERY TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT VIJAYA
BHAVAN, HIMAI NAGAR-6, JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT.
11 SHERLY, D/O.LATE M.V.SAMUEL,
MOOTHAMPACKAL HOUSE, EDAYARANMULA MURI,
KOZHENCHERY TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT VIJAYA
BHAVAN, HIMAI NAGAR-6, JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT.
BY ADV SRI.T.A.RAJAN R3-R5
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 30.11.2021, ALONG WITH RSA.694/2010, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA Nos. 694 & 695 of 2010
..5..
JUDGMENT
The above second appeals arise from the common
judgment and decree of the District Court,
Pathanamthitta in AS Nos.48 & 49 of 2003.
2. RSA No.694/2010 is directed against the
judgment and decree dated 30.11.2009 in AS
No.48/2003 on the file of the District Court,
Pathanamthitta arising from the judgment and
decree dated 29.11.2002 in OS No. 576/1994 on
the file of the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta.
RSA No.695/2010 is against the judgment and
decree dated 30.11.2009 in AS No.49/2003 on
the file of the District Court, Pathanamthitta
arising from the judgment and decree dated
29.11.2002 in OS No.711/1994 on the file of
the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta.
3. OS No.576/1994 and OS No.711/1994 were tried
together and the trial court passed a common
RSA Nos. 694 & 695 of 2010
..6..
judgment and decree. The appellant in RSA
No.694/2010 is the 1st respondent before the
first appellate court and the first defendant
in the trial court. The respondents herein are
appellants 2 to 4 and respondents 3 to 5
before the first appellate court and
additional plaintiffs 2 to 4 and defendants 3
to 5 in the trial court.
4. The appellant in RSA No.695/2010 is the 1 st
respondent before the first appellate court
and the plaintiff in the trial court. The
respondents are appellants 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
and 10 and legal heirs of the 3 rd defendant
before the first appellate court and
defendants 2, 4 to 7 and 10 to 12 before the
trial court.
5. During the pendency of the appeal, the
appellant and the 2nd respondent in RSA No.
694/2010 mediated the appeal out of court and
RSA Nos. 694 & 695 of 2010
..7..
finally resolved the dispute by virtue of
mediation agreement dated 07.10.2021. On
receipt of the mediation agreement before this
Court, the learned counsel for the appellants
in RSA No.694/2010 filed I.A.No.1/2021 seeking
to delete respondent Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 from
the party array. The learned counsel for the
contesting 2nd respondent submits that the
dispute has been amicably settled between the
parties and all the other respondents are not
necessary parties to the mediation agreement.
6. This Court has gone through the terms of the
compromise. On going through the compromise,
it appears that the compromise is recorded
jointly in RSA Nos. 694/2010 & 695/2010. Since
all the respondents except the 2nd
respondent are removed from the party
array, the compromise in RSA No. 694/2010 is
legally in order. However, the respondents
RSA Nos. 694 & 695 of 2010
..8..
in RSA No. 695/2010 are not parties to the
compromise. Hence, the compromise in RSA No.
695/2010 is not legally in order.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits
that nothing survives for consideration in RSA
No. 695/2010 in view of the settlement arrived
at between the parties in RSA No. 694/2010.
Therefore, the learned counsel seeks to
withdraw RSA No. 695/2010.
8. In the light of the above, I.A.No.1/2021 in
RSA No.694/2010 stands allowed and respondent
Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in RSA No. 694/2010 are
deleted from the party array.
9. In the result, RSA No. 694/2010 is disposed of
in terms of the agreement. The mediation
agreement between the appellant and the 2nd
respondent in RSA No. 694/2010 is recorded.
The terms of compromise will form part of the
decree.
RSA Nos. 694 & 695 of 2010
..9..
10.RSA No. 695/2010 is dismissed as withdrawn in
view of the settlement arrived at between the
parties in RSA No. 694/2010.
There would be no order as to costs. Pending
applications, if any, stand closed.
Sd/-
N.ANIL KUMAR
JUDGE
Bka/01.12.2021
