Disposed

Mrs.Molly Joseph v. Thressia

Kerala HC21 Jun 2010MFA/1036/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two appeals in a succession suit concerning a Will. The court recorded a compromise between the parties regarding the partition of immovable property and modified the decree accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Decree modified in terms of the compromise; appeals disposed of by recording the compromise.

What the court decided

Mrs.Molly Joseph Vs Thressia — Succession and Inheritance | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 MFA.No. 1036 of 2001(A) ---------------------------OS.4/1994 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM

¶2

APPELLANT/FIRST DEFENDANT:

¶3

---------------------------------MRS. MOLLY JOSEPH, W/O. JOSEPH, AGED 37 YEARS, FLAT NO. 679, 9TH SECTION, 48TH STREET, K.K. NAGAR, MADRAS – 78.

¶4

BY ADV. SRI.T.B.THANKAPPAN SMT.K.DEEPA SMT.K.L.ROOPA

¶5

RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 2 TO 19: -------------------------------------------------------1. THRESIA @ THANKAMMA, D/O. XAVIER, RESIDING NO.1/357, PRINCES STREET, FORT COCHIN, KOCHI-1. (DIED. LEGAL HEIRS IMPLEADED) 2. MR. D.J. ANTONY, S/O. LATE D.P. JOSEPH, DEWASOMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAZARETH, COCHIN - 2. 3. D.J. TOMY, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. LATE D.P. JOSEPH, DEWASOMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAZARETH, COCHIN-2. 4. MRS. MARY JOSEPH, D/O. LATE D.P. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT BUILDING NO.47/659, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, L.F.C. ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 5. SIBY, D/O. LATE D.P. JOSEPH, DEWASOMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAZARETH, COCHIN-2. 6. D.M. RAJU, S/O. LATE D.P. MARSILI, AGED 50 YEARS, DEWASOMPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMARAVATHY, COCHIN-682 001. 7. MRS. LEELA, D/O. LATE D.P. MARSILI, LEELA MANDIR, AMARAVATHY, COCHIN-1. 8. JENY, D/O. LATE MARSILI, DEWASOMPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMARAVATHY, COCHIN-1. 9. SMT. PAULILN, W/O. LATE D.P. VARGHESE, DEWASOMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAZARETH, KOCHI-2.

¶6

MR. CHARLEY, S/O. LATE D.P. VARGHESE, AGED 38 YEARS, DEWASOMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAZARETH, COCHIN-2.

¶7

FONCY, D/O. LATE D.P. VARGHESE, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT DEWASOMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAZARETH, COCHIN-2.

¶8

12 DOROTHY, D/O. LATE D.P. VARGHESE,

¶9

DEWASOMPARAMBIL

¶10

HOUSE, NAZARETH, COCHIN-2.

¶11

THRESSIAKUTTY, W/O. SEBASTIAN, CHETTY HOUSE, TROMWAY ROAD, CHALAKUDY.

¶12

PUSHPAM, D/O. LATE XAVIER, RESIDING AT C.C.1/2061, MALATT HOUSE, CHIRATTAPALAM.

¶13

REETHA, D/O. LATE XAVIER, RESIDING AT DO. DO.

¶14

VENNY, AGED ABOUT 49, D/O. LATE XAVIER, RESIDING AT DO. DO.

¶15

JESSY, W/O. PATRIC AND D/O.LATE XAVIER, THALONIVELIKKAKATH, NEAR SUJATHA THEATRE, PANDIKKUDI, COCHIN-2.

¶16

IRIS, D/O. LATE XAVIER, RESIDING AT C.C.1/2061, MALATT HOUSE, CHIRATTAPALAM.

¶17

ADDL.R19 IMPLEADED:

¶18

ADDL. R19. SAJOMOL NIXON, 1/357, PRINCES STREET, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI – 1

¶19

ADDL.R19 IMPLEADED AS LR. OF DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE COMMON ORDER DT. 28/10/2008 IN IA.NO.2255/08 & 2807/2008.

¶20

ADV. SRI.R.D.SHENOY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.S.VINOD BHAT FOR R1 SRI.P.O.JOSEPH FOR R2

¶21

SRI.S.VINOD BHAT FOR ADDL.R19

¶22

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2010, ALONG WITH MFA NO. 97/2002 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ.

¶24

- - - - M.F.A. No. 1036 of 2001 & M.F.A. No. 97 of 2002

¶25

¶26

Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2010 Judgment

¶27

Basheer, J:

¶28

These two appeals are directed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.4/1994. The appellants are respectively defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the above suit.

¶29

The bone of contention in the suit primarily revolved around the genuineness and validity of Ext.A6 Will. The court below held that Ext.A6 Will is the last Will of the testator and accordingly granted Letters of Administration in favour of respondent No.1. Respondent No.19 in these appeals is the sole legal representative of deceased respondent No.1.

¶30

When the appeals came up for hearing on an earlier occasion, we heard learned counsel for the parties and we were prima facie satisfied that the finding entered by the court below as regards the validity of Ext.A6 Will does not call for any interference. However we requested learned counsel on either side to try for a compromise and suggested that the parties do appear before us.

¶31

It is quite heartening to note that the parties who have been at loggerheads for more than 1 ½ decades readily agreed

¶32

MFA.1036/01 & 97/02.

¶33

: 2 :

¶34

before us that they would try to put an end to this sordid fiasco at the earliest.

¶35

The parties have now filed a compromise petition incorporating the terms of compromise.

¶36

Before referring to the terms incorporated in the compromise petition, we deem it necessary to refer to one aspect. Ext.A6 Will contained three items of immovable properties apart from certain movables. It is on record that respondent No.19 is now residing in item No.3. Item No.2 had already been sold away some time back. Item No.1 is a small item of property having a total extent of 6.5 cents.

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted before us that the appellants are prepared to give up their claim over item Nos.2 and 3 apart from the movables, in toto. As regards item No.1 parties have agreed that respondent No.1 will retain two cents in the said item and two cents each will be allotted to the appellants in the two appeals with a common pathway having an extent of about half a cent. A rough sketch in respect of the said item demarcating the pathway and the different plots is also appended to the compromise petition. Compromise petition and the rough sketch shall form part of the decree.

¶38

MFA.1036/01 & 97/02.

¶39

: 3 :

¶40

Since the parties have now come to a compromise as regards the long pending dispute, it necessarily follows that the decree passed by the court below has to be necessarily modified in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties. Therefore the decree shall stand modified in terms of the compromise.

¶41

Appeals are disposed of in the above terms, recording the compromise.

¶42

A.K. Basheer

¶43

Judge.

¶44

P.Q. Barkath Ali Judge.

¶45

an.

Mrs.Molly Joseph v. Thressia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Mrs.Molly Joseph v. Thressia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Haridas R.T Vs Josey J.Jose

Selvaraj Vs Parthan Achari

Kochappan Vs Sivan

K.Shamsudheen Vs M.K.Anilkumar

Yashique Vs Anwar Haroon Ali.M

Jyothi Lalithambika Vs Sasikumar