Allowed

Palanidas v. Thankamma

Kerala HC26 Jul 2012RSA/1229/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This regular second appeal from the Principal Sub Judge, Alappuzha, arose from a suit for partition. The parties filed a compromise petition during pendency. The court accepted the settlement, set aside the impugned judgment, and decreed the suit according to the terms of the compromise agreement regarding property division.

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal allowed; judgment and decree of lower courts set aside; O.S. No.620 of 1996 decreed in terms of compromise regarding division of property.

Palanidas Vs Thankamma — Partition | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2012/4TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

RSA.NO. 1229 OF 2004 (D)

¶6

AS.89/2002 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA OS.620/1996 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

PALANIDAS, S/O. LATE KUTTY KESAVAN, VADAKKE UNIKKUPPAYIL KAITHAVANA MURI (DIED).

¶9

ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS IMPLEADED:

¶10

2. N. CHINTHAMANI, AGED 66 YEARS, W/P. PALANIDAS, VADAKKE UNIKKUPPAYIL, KAITHAVANA MURI, SANATHANAPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶11

3. K.P. RAJEEV, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. PALANIDAS, VADAKKE UNIKKUPPAYIL, KAITHAVANA MURI, SANATHANAPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶12

4. N.C. REJI, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. PALANIDAS, KLATHIL VELIYIL, S.N. PURAM P.O., MUHAMMA, ALAPPUZHA.

¶13

5. K.P. RENJITH, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. PALANIDAS, VADAKKE UNIKKUPPAYIL KAITHAVANA MURI, SANATHANAPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

R.S.A. No.1229 of 2004

¶15

6. K.P. SAJI, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. PALANIDAS, VADAKKE UNIKKUPPAYIL, KAITHAVANA MURI, SANATHANAPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶16

LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED SOLE APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 TO 6 AS PER ORDER DTED 6.2.2012 IN I.A. NO.336 OF 2012.

¶17

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶19

1. THANKAMMA, W/O. LATE KUTTY GOVINDAN, VADAKKE UNIKUPPAYIL, KAITHAVANA MURI.

¶20

2. VIJAYAN, S/O. LATE GOVINDAN, VADAKKE UNIKUPPAYIL, KAITHAVANA MURI.

¶21

3. SREESAN, S/O. LATE GOVINDAN, VADAKKE UNIKUPPAYIL, KAITHAVANA MURI.

¶22

BY ADV. SRI.JOHN BRITTO BY ADV. SRI.C.A.RAJEEV

¶23

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶25

==================================== R.S.A. No.1229 of 2004

¶26

& I.A. No.1845 of 2012 ==================================== Dated this the 26^th day of July, 2012

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The Second Appeal arises from the judgment and decree of learned Principal Sub Judge, Alappuzha in A.S. No.89 of 2002. Learned Sub Judge, by the impugned judgment and decree reversed the preliminary decree for partition passed by the learned Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha in O.S. No.620 of 1996 and dismissed the suit.

¶29

During the pendency of the Second Appeal, appellantplaintiff died and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional appellants 2 to 6.

¶30

Parties have now settled the dispute and filed I.A. No.1845 of 2012 signed by them and their respective counsel requesting to pass a decree in terms of the settlement.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and gone through the compromise petition I find no reason why the request for passing a decree in terms of the settlement should not be allowed. Hence the settlement entered between the parties

¶32

R.S.A. No.1229 of 2004

¶33

-: 2 :-

¶34

could be recorded and accepted.

¶35

The Second Appeal is allowed as under:

¶36

(a) Judgment and decree of learned

¶37

Principal Sub Judge, Alappuzha in A.S. No.89 of 2002 and of learned Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha in O.S. No.620 of 1996 are set aside.

¶38

(b) O.S. No.620 of 1996 is decreed in terms

¶39

of the compromise (vide I.A. No.1845 of 2012) as under:

¶40

(i) The appellants and the

¶41

respondents have agreed to divide the property into two parts of 14 cents and 24 cents.

¶42

(ii) The appellants jointly will be entitled to the 14 cents on the eastern side facing the National Highway and the buildings situated therein and also shop rooms bearing Nos.33/80, 33/81 and 33/82 of Alappuzha Municipality.

¶43

R.S.A. No.1229 of 2004

¶44

-: 3 :-

¶45

(iii) The respondents jointly will be entitled to the remaining 24 cents on the western side facing Pulayanvazhi Road.

¶46

(iv) The respondents will obtain vacant possession of the southern shop room leased out to Shri B. Sivadasan and hand over vacant possession of the same to the appellants.

¶47

(v) The parties will execute and get registered a deed partitioning the property in terms of the compromise as stated above.

¶48

¶49

All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed.

¶50

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶51

vsv

Palanidas v. Thankamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palanidas v. Thankamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mumtaz Vs Bai Singh

Gopinathan Vs Kalyani Amma

Rajagopal.M.P.and Another Vs Copalan Nair Chandrasekharan Nair & Ors.

Kesavan Gangadharan & Others Vs Kesavan Rajendran

Abdul Rasak Vs Arumughan

Kochukuttan Vs Davis