Kerala High Court
Shiju vs Reena on 24 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT 0F KERALA AT ERI\IAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NIl\lAl\l
"URSDAY, THE 24" DAY 0F FEBRUARY 2®22 / 5Tl+ PHALGUNA, 1943
RSA NO. 287 0F 2®17
AGAIl\lsT THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 353/20®8 0F PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
COURT , TRIVANDRUM
AS 104/2®12 0F SUB COuRT, NEYYATTINKARA
AppELLAAiT/AppEJ.LAAiT/REspoueEJ\iT ue. 2/2AiD DEJ=ENDAuT =
SHIJU
AGED 37 YEARS
AGED 37 YEARS, S/0.KRISHNAN © DEVA RAJ, KRISHNA NIVAS,
AMARAVILA, NAD00RKOLLA DESOM, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE.
BY ADV SRI,BIJU .C. ABRAHAM
RESPOI\lDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESpol\lDENT NO.1/PLAINTIFF: AND
IST DEJ=ENDANT :
REENA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/0.DALLI BHAI, STAR HOME,
MEKKOLLA DESOM, KOLLYIL VILLAGE, PIN-695574.
SHAJU, AGED 40 YEARS, S/0,KRISHNAN, KRISHNA NIVAS,
AMARAVILA, NAD00RKOLLA DESOM, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE, PIN-
695574 ,
BY ADVS.
SMT, LIGEY ANTONY
SRI , L . MOHANAN
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION 0N
24,02.2022, THE COURT 0N THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA NO. 287 0F 2017
JUDGMENT
The parties have settl.ed their disputes in
mediation. They have executed a memorandum of
agreement incorporating the terms of settlement.
The appeal is disposed of in terms thereof .
Memorandum of settlement wil.I. form part of the
j udgment .
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
sd
I
011443
8_
M. No. 37J' /2022. Mediation Sub Centre,
/,f;::.giv:;riff:I:::`
' `.`!
Neyyattinkara.
Dated. 14/02/2022.
f` 17FEB?r.1
From.
R. Vinayaka Rao, E%SRE\ir:-:-
i¥.5`,-`,i.[`~i,-----`~,,
Convenor,
Mediation Sub Centre,
Neyyattinkara.
(District Judge/ Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Neyyattinkara)
To.
The Registrar (Judicial),
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala,
Ernakulam.
Sir'
•-,
Sub:-Mediation in MJC. No.10/2021 in RSANo. 287/2017-(A) of the
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala- Report submitting of -Reg.
Ref:- Letter , dated 18/12/2021 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
With reference to the above, I am submitting herewith the settled report filed
by the MediatorAdv. S. Jayasree in MJC. No.10/2021 in RSA No. 287/2017-(A)
of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, for favour of necessary action.
J{ CONVENOR.
(District Judge/ Motor Accidents Claims Thibunal)
Encl. :-As above.
¢,
\
I \,-viEivioRANDUM OFAGREEMENT UNDER SECTioN 89 OF THE CODE OF civiL
PROCEDURE READ WITH RULES 24 & 25 0F THE MEDIATION RULES 2005
CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION) RULES 2008
lnthecourtof frotL`bL EL`drcoutF 0t fuaAci. ,,kL=rL~r,~+`..rl~-*`\
Os7AstcMA;Mc;cMp7 NO Mfc NO. )O/goauNRSArdo`
-`
Pla.intiffs/Appellants/Petitioners ,
SH'JU
~
Defendants/Respondents/Counterpetitioners : 1 , R EGNA
a , 5 H 4 J` U
The parties above.named beg to submit as follows :
~_
1. The aforesaid SuiVAppeal/Petition/Complaint were`roferred to mediation for Solving
the dispute between the parties. In the course of mediation they have resolved their
dispute and have agreed to the following terms and conditions.
%tut ue~ ob ,ywhELqEL iJ6 €icaalLfty
Im
atul .
(iii)
I,-`
® (iv)
(v)
5H)i_L|
REeNAca_
e H-ft- I J r
r,
2. In view of the aforesaid agreemerit entered in to between parties, the parties
pray that the suit/Appeal/petition/Complaint be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid
agreement.
3. In view of the aforesaid agreement, plaintiff/appellanvpetitioner prays for r.efund
of full institution fee.
4. Parties win appearon „ ......................... beforethecourtforpassing 9rders/Decree
in terms of the above agreeT~e,EL
+REEwfrqugrv
JS H \ Fu £ , 5 ItAG-1/
omp,a;nanuAppeTtfnt Defendants/CP's/Respondent
'ifro-
alGbTty¥
ff/P-etitioner/Complainant/Appellant
-,-.dr.'``peic#:,:
Advocate for Defendants/CP's/Responden ts,'REe`
VERIFICATION
We the parties above named, do hereby solemnly state and declare that what is u
contained in paragraph 1 to ..7....... are trije to the best of our knowledge, information
and belief.
P`ace : N e# \CculA
Dated: 02,'02'5L022.
Plaintiff/Petitioner/ComplainanuAppellant Defendants/CP's/Respondent
sLCJ`tt## t-TZDJZ_ q#
`SRAQ\`\u
9-fty`-
p F lr,
Matter Settled Between the Parties as per the following Terms
1. The appellant¢nd defendant,1st Respondent /Plaintiff and 2nd Respondent/
1st defendant agreed to take their respective shares as allotted in Final Decree in 0 S
353/2008.
(i 2. As perthefinal decree plaintiff/1st respondent is allotted BCDK plotadmeasur-
ing 23 cents 622sq.links and LMA6XIXWA4 plot admeasuring 5cents 905sq.links in
Ext C1(a) plan.1st Defendant¢nd respondent is allotted DEHK plot admeasuring 23
cents 622 sq.links and WXXIYZAIA2A3A5UV plot admeasuring 5 cents 905 sq .links in
Ext C1 (a) plan.2nd Defendant/appellant is allotted EFGIH plot admeasuring 23 cents
622 sq ft and YPQRSTUA5A3A2AIZ plot admeasuring 5 cents 905 Sq.links in Ext C1(a)
plan.
3. Towards equalisation of amount Rs.7,26,950/-to be paid by 2nd respondent/
r) Shaj.uto appellant/Shij.u and lst respondent/Reena, 2nd respondent/Shaju isagreed
to relinguish his right over DEHK plot admeasuring 23 cents 622 sq.links to appellant
and lst Respondent under the following proportion.
4. Out ofthetotal extentof 23 cents 622 sq.links of property (DEHK plot) allotted
to 2nd respondent/1st defendent right over 8 cents 622 sq links valued for Rs.2,62,845/
-adj.acent to BCDK plot is given to lst respondent/plaintiff .And rest of 15 cents val-
ued for Rs.4,64,105/-adj.acent to EFGIH plot is given to appellant¢nd defendant.The
same shall be partitioned by the appellant and lst respondent at their own risk and
cost.
S H I J- I J
-i=EENQ ap
i,grflJu ¥rty
`0`.
5. It is also agreed bythe parties thatwith regard to the 2nd property, the allot-
ment can be retained as it is in the final decree, but that the width of the access road
MNPYXIA6 portion seperately shown in yellow colour in the Ext C1 (a) plan can be
widened to 7 feet from its present width to enable the said pathway to have a total
width of 7 feet upto the property allotted to appellant¢nd defendant and from there
to the property allotted to the 2nd respondent/1st defendant. Extra width of 3.75 feet
a from point M to A6 will be given by the lst respondent plaintiff from their plot
(LMA6XIXW84) and the extra 3.75 feet from point P to Y will be given by appellant/
2nd defendant from his plot (YPQRSTUA5A3A2AIZ) lt is agreed by the parties that the
access thus widened by utilising portion of property of lst Respondent/Reena and
appellant /Shiju from the present width to 7 feet can be used by all the three parties
without causing any obstacles whatever in future.
6. In the plan appended tothe decree (Ext c1(a) ) as well as in the decree schedule
the Old Survey Numbers and Re Survey Numbers are mistakenly entered as 133A -14
a) and 122/1 instead of 133/1-14 and 102/1.And also Rs Survey Number with regard to
plot number 2 is mistakenly written as 381/1 instead of 381A. Hence it is to be cor-
rected.
7. Also inthecausetitle ofdecreethefatheroflstdefendant/Shaju is mistakenly
written as Devaraj instead of Krishnan . Hence it is also to be corrected .
x§afeo un* utnri c2^O tl~v~-i jehoi z4%a
Rfs!``h-icL..`.|T
4pFulaul-
4 f2a~ clap
3It3us qu_
a . 8H u
co-set EL ur chppeu frot-ap tr I+-
I-+:--:::--:-:--::--:i----
HI
A+ `>
Bl<:I<`oRRTIIEIIONoURABLE..tl..`..9..u....€.9.*.RT......9f......!€.S.£.4.t.?.......CoURT
TDIE::VizA=±±NKArRA j=R8uJal<U IATv1,
MJCNo. IO/2oa) lw RS4INo.28r|/2o\i(A)
`_
Between
lil S tt ' TU
plaintiffs/Appellants/Petitioners
e Alld
1,
Defendants/Respondents/Counter Petitioners I. @t-ECVA
2 ,SthIru
S . JA y A 5 R C- E
Mcdi:\lion Report submitted by Advocate
the Mcdicitor in the abo\Je case.
:r+`
(Rule 24 (2) of CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RPSOLUTION) RULES 2008)
The above case SETTLED.
Settlement Agreement attached for necessary orders.
Datedihc to!*` FalLtwa+u 2o 2z
BL=FofzE THC-\+oN\ eL,rr
OF K€f2ALA,
\+\ChH-Couf<T
Ef2NA\<uLPryv\
MfLN o .10 / 2 o 51 I
\N
q25A G`o -28 r7 /20\1 (A )
8eA-
Squ - Ap\>eurauo-
A,.cL
; g#= i EL6pcoul_
frohoahirco tryotl-qu LELtr
ouueJ`
€
£ ' a A y A~5 a c- c-
