Allowed

M.E.Paul and Another v. N.K.Narayanan

Kerala HC9 Feb 2010SA/521/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal regarding recovery of possession, the Court allowed an interim application to remove parties whose rights were purchased by a third respondent. The main appeal was then allowed based on a recorded compromise where appellants surrendered possession of the property and the fifth respondent relinquished arrears of rent claims.

What did the court decide?

Compromise petition recorded; Respondents 3 and 4 removed from party array; Second appeal allowed; Decree in A.S.139/1991 set aside and new decree passed in terms of compromise.

M.E.Paul and Another Vs N.K.Narayanan — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931

¶5

SA.No. 521 of 1995(D)

¶6

--------------------AS.139/1991 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM OS.1763/1989 of I ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,ERNAKULAM

¶7

APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶8

-------------------------------------------------1. M.E.PAUL, SON OF EPHERIM, AGED 41, ROOM NO.7,XL/2691, VIMALA LODGE, CLOTH BAZAR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.E.THOMAS.

¶9

M.E.THOMAS, SON OF EPHERIM, AGED 42 ROOM NO.7, XL/2691, VIMALA LODGE CLOTH BAZAR ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.K.BRAHMANANDAN SRI.G.SREENIVASA PRABHU SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF

¶12

-------------------------------------------N.NARAYANAN, SON OF KANDAN, AGED ABOUT 86, NADEPPILLIYIL HOUSE THRIKKANARAVATTOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE. (DIED) LRS IMPLEADED.

¶13

ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN FOR R3,R4 SRI.K.C.CHARLES FOR R3,R4 SRI.PRAKASH P.GEORGE FOR R3,R4 SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN FOR ADDL. R5

¶14

ADDL.RESPONDENTS:------------------------ADDL.R2:- SUBHADRA, W/O.LATE N.K.NARAYANAN NEDEPPILLY HOUSE, KRISHNASWAMY CROSS ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

ADDL.R3:- LEELA SANALKUMAR, D/o.LATE N.K.NARAYANAN -DO- -D0-

¶16

ADDL.R4:- VIMALA RAMESH, D/O.LATE N.U.NARAYANAN

¶17

-D0-DO-

¶18

ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED ADDL.R2 TO ADDL.R4 ARE IMPLEADED. LRS OF SOLE RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 4/6/08 IN CMP 627/00.

¶19

ADDL.R2(DIED). ADDL.R3 & ADDL.R4 ARE RECORDED AS LRS OF DECEASED R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 4/6/2008 IN CMP 1166/2008 IN S.A.

¶20

ADDL.R5:- MOHAMMED IDRIES, SON OF MOHAMMED RAFIQUE, AGED 28, RESIDING AT 42/2260, B6, JEWEL SPARK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI.18.

¶21

ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 3/7/08 IN I.A.1377/2008 IN S.A.

¶22

THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶24

===========================

¶25

I.A.384/2010 & I.A.385/2010 &S.A.521/1995

¶26

===========================

¶27

Dated this the 9^th day of February,2010

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Defendants in O.S.1763/1989 on the file of

¶30

Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam are the appellants. Deceased first respondent was the plaintiff. On the death of the first respondent,

¶31

respondents 2 to 4 were impleaded as his legal heirs. As the second respondent subsequently died, respondents 3 and 4 were recorded as the

¶32

legal heirs of the second respondent. Fifth respondent got himself impleaded as per order in I.A.1377/2008 on the contention that he has purchased the rights from respondents 3 and 4

¶33

being the legal heirs of deceased first respondent. Appellants filed the Second Appeal challenging the decree for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property

¶34

S.A.No.521/1995 2

¶35

which is room No.7 of Vimala Lodge. I.A.384/2010 is filed to delete respondents 3 and 4 from the party array contending that as the fifth respondent had

¶36

purchased the entire rights of the original plaintiff from his legal heirs, it is not necessary to continue respondents 3 and 4 the remaining surviving legal heirs of deceased first respondent in the party array. The plea is sustainable. In such circumstances, I.A.384/2010 is allowed and respondents 3 and 4 are removed from the party array.

¶37

appellants and fifth respondent who alone now remains in the party array after the removal of respondents 3 and 4 as per order in I.A.384/2010

¶38

and the death of respondents 1 and 2, under Rule 3 of Order XXIII of Code of Civil Procedure to record the compromise and to pass a decree in terms of the

¶39

compromise. Compromise petition shows that the appellants have withdrawn all the contentions and

¶40

S.A.No.521/1995 3

¶41

agreed unconditionally to surrender room No.7 of Vimala Lodge on or before 10.3.2010 and the fifth respondent has relinquished the claim for arrears of rent. I.A.384/2010 is allowed. The compromise is recorded.

¶42

Second appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise as follows:- The decree and judgment in A.S.139/1991 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam are set aside. A decree is passed in terms of the compromise petition recorded in I.A.385/2010. The compromise petition will form part of the decree.

¶43

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶44

tpl/-

¶45

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶46

W.P.(C).NO. /06

¶47

--------------------JUDGMENT

¶48

SEPTEMBER,2006

M.E.Paul and Another v. N.K.Narayanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.E.Paul and Another v. N.K.Narayanan

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

Raman Vs E.P.Ramachandra

Arikkadan Ahammedkutty Vs Karunthottathil Muhammedkutty

Sadanandan Soumi Vs Saudamini Vijayamma

Daisomma Vs Varghese

Daisamma Vs Varghese

Kallyani Amma Vs Kali