Dr.Raju Mathew vs Thomas
2023 Latest Caselaw 3941 Ker

                      IN TEIE HIGII COURT OF RERAIA AT EEINARIJIJ`M

                                              LREE±f3]i¥Fi


                         "E j!co"JBABIE bdBs~ ,JHSIICE H,J},ABalIElaL

            THURsmr, THE 3o" mr oF mRcll 2o23 / 9Tzl cmlTHRA, 194S

                                    RSA NO. 218 0F 2017

       AEaLINST "m ORDER/L}ErmENT IN As 23/2ol3 oF SUB Oor]RT, M(7`mz"mlzmi

                      Os 2J,/2.oni OF aflnlslFF coznT,mnmrnmlz!±a
AppEIAAiars/REscoNDmaTs/DErmmz`aus:

             DR.RZUU RATHEWS
             aesE2 6E ¥EABs., s./a.
             -ro-rmbaaNaa=aba i. a , RATElaI, EZ2e±TEla=A zicus.E^EN,GaTQI!GaBa~,
                                      ee6 691,-f©-rmbabaiaa=aaa  -irl-±=haE ,
             TAlitzEc, {21® REspcho=rtT/2io DEFEtfENT}
             DR. BhBir MhTH=w
             AesD 61 ¥EARs, s/o Ma,TEIAI, EDAgHAIA House,ANGADIKARA,
             KOTHAMANGA14AM pO, plN. 686 691, roTHAMaNGAIAM VII.IAes ,KOTHAMaNGAIAM
             TA147K, {3BD REseguD=NT/3RD DEFENDANT)
             rmy 4OsE
             Afffi 7¢ yEARs, ff/a Ofi. 4QSE Effl,VILE,fiftfzmylL HOusE, "Ontfcezffl
             po,plN` 68S 584 , THODt7puzfIA vlnAes,THo"]puzHA TiAII]K.              (let
             REspormENT/isT DEFENDANT DIEI] oN 28.1o.2ol6 IEGhL REPRESENTATlvEs
             ARE APPE-TS)
             8¥ ADv SRI.a. HARltq}RaeooElaN italR


Hf=i-i+TiE-il-TEE/i€IIAm£/H.AT]mTm:

      1TH-
             AGED 79 ¥mRSz s/o EEN7IosEZEDziTliAIA House. REMaliooR
             FB"'as
             KOTHae4aleaziliaB4 Tal*nc.
                                          Eo, co669i ,Fro           VI-,
             SEEN -
             AffD ABOuT 69 yEARs ,w/O THOMhs , EDATHAIA HOLISE ,roTHAMENGAI.AM
             po. 686691,EroTHAMaNGAIAM vlLIAes , KOTHAMaNGAIAM TALtlK.
             EIf anws.
             SRI.GEORes vaRGHESE Klz
             SRI.v. Raja:eiai`aH {p€FIt]BrmwocR}



      THls RIca7ILAR sEcoue AppEAI. HAVING REIN FINALI;¥ EEARD oN 3o.o3.2o23,              THE
•ccqu` oat mm sale DAY D=LlvERED mE rolIjcwlREt
  R.S.A.No.218/2017




                                 tJtHJRENT

       This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree

in A.S.No.23/2013 on the flle of Sub Court, Muvattupuzha, which

arose out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.21/2001 on the

file of Munsiffs Court, Muvattupuzha.

       2.     When the case is taken up, it is submitted by the

learned counsel fo-r the appell-a-nts a§ -well a§ I-he leaned eo~u-n§el

for respondents that the parties amicably settled entire issues

out of court and a compromise was entered into.

3. I.A.No.1/2023 also filed to record tlle compromise and

requested to dispose the appeal in terms with t;he compromise.

4. On going through the terms of the compromise, I am satisfied that the terms of the compromise are legal and proper.

Pa-ftJies settled the e-nti-re JI§s-tles a-ut a-f eo.ti-ft and there is -no

impediment in recording the compromise.

Accordingly, appeal allowed and suit dismissed.

Compromise entered into between the parties will form part of

the decree.

Sd/-

M.R.ENITm SIIG JTDGE BEFORE TIIE HON'BLE HGH COURT 0F KERAI.A AT EENAKULAM

1. A.No. of2022

IN R.SA. No. 218 of 2017

COMPROMISE Filed by (1) Ist Appellant Iit. Raju Mathew, aged 65 years, S/o Mathew, Edathala

® House, Kothamangalan p.O, Pin: 686 691, Kothamangalam village (2) 2nd Appellant Dr. Bat)y Mathew, aged 61 years S/o. Mathew, Edathala House, Kothamangalam P.0, Pin 686 691, Kothanangalam Village (3) 3rd Appellant Mary Jose aged 70 years, W/o i-

Dr. Jose Paul, Vellimuzhayil House, Thodupuzha P.O, Pin: 685 584, Thodupuzha Village and (1) Ist respondent Thomas, aged 79 years, S/o. Paulose, Edathala House, Kothamangalam P.O, Pin 686 691, Kothamangalam Village (2) Selin Thomas, aged 69

years, W/o, Thomas, Edathala House, Kothanangalam P.O, Pin: 686 691, Kothanangalam Village under Order 23 Rule 1 of code of civil Procedue.

The parties hereunto submit as follows:

1. The case settled between appellants and respondents.

2. The respondents herein executed Settlement Deed No. 159/22 of

Kothamangalam Sub Registry in favour of Er. Mathew Baby S/o. 2nd Appellant with regard to their properties.

|sl Appellant : Dr. Raju Mathew .f.4„` •J-¥9, Respondent : Selin Thoma s(Lbe¥=`==,`.-- 2nd Appellant : Dr. Baby Mathew Z7<yrf#ndRRe::D°onndde::t.::eh[:nm::

3rdAppellant : MaryJose Nj#

3. Under the above said circumstances the reliefs sought for in the plaint are relinquished by respondents Plaintiffs and the suit is not pressed.

4. The parties herein have agreed to suffer their respective costs of the litigation.

Therefore it is prayed that this Hoii'ble Court may be pleased to record this compromise and may dismiss the suit.

Dated this the 16th day of February 2022.

•   |3lAppellant        Dr RajuMathew¢"
    2nd Appe||ant : Dr. Baby Mathew                         ti-
    3rd Appe|lant : Mary Jose


    Adv: C. Harindramohan            Naif,<,
    |st Respondent : Thomas           ±_ii--`:
    2nd Respondent : Selin Tho               I.




    Adv:¢V. Rajendran            .        '`1-`,=`-   `,   :.`



                                            VERIFICATION

All the facts stated above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, infomation and belief.

|st Appellant : Dr. Raju Mathew --.-iL.:-i:---i 2nd Appel|ant : Dr. Baby Mathew

3rd Appe||ant : Mary Jose

I8` Respondent : Thomas i:`i_--_:i:_-:

2nd Respondent : Selin Thomas ru'2¥------