Sunshine Apartments vs Kamalasanan K
2024 Latest Caselaw 5661 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sunshine Apartments vs Kamalasanan K on 16 February, 2024

Author: Sathish Ninan

Bench: Sathish Ninan

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
   FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945
                      RFA NO. 90 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.8.2014 IN OS 513/2012
                     OF SUB COURT, KANNUR
APPELLANT/1ST DEFENDANT:

          SUNSHINE APARTMENTS
          REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT.SHYAMALA RAJAN,
          W/O. O.P RAJAN,AGED 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT
          VIDYABHAVAN KANNUR-1 AMSOM,THALIKKAVU WARD, KANNUR
          TALUK
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.SHAJI THOMAS
          SRI.K.BABU
          SRI.BINU PAUL
          SRI.T.V.VINU


RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND 2ND DEFENDANT:

    1     KAMALASANAN K.
          AGED 54 YEARS
          S/O.KUNJU PILLAI,RESIDING AT RAJANI HOUSE,THALIKKAVU
          KANNUR-1 AMSOM,DESOM,POST KANNUR 670 001 KANNUR
          TALUK
    2     STATE BANK OF INDIA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST.GENERAL MANAGER,
          RASMECCC(KANNUR BRANCH),DESOM,THALIKKAVU WARD,KANNUR
          TALUK 670 001
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
          SMT.SEEMA
          SRI.R.S.KALKURA


     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                      Sathish Ninan, J.
             ==============================
                   R.F.A No.90 of 2015
               ==========================
        Dated this the 16th day of February, 2024

                        JUDGMENT

The parties have settled their disputes in

mediation. They have entered into a memorandum of

agreement incorporating the terms of settlement.

The decree and judgment impugned in this appeal is

set aside and modified decree is passed in terms of

settlement. The memorandum of agreement will form

part of this judgment.

2. The court fee paid on the memorandum of

appeal shall be refunded to the appellant.

The amount stated to have been deposited by the

1st respondent pursuant to the decree impugned shall

be returned to him.

Sd/-

Sathish Ninan, Judge SVP