Disposed

Kunjumohammed v. Pathu

Kerala HC26 Jun 2012RSA/441/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding partition of property, the High Court disposed of the matter in terms of a mediation settlement agreement signed by all parties, recording the settlement and pronouncing a modified preliminary decree dividing the property among the respondents and one appellant.

What did the court decide?

A preliminary decree was passed substituting the impugned decree in terms of the mediation settlement, dividing Plot No.1 into shares for Mariyumma, Kunju Mohammed, and Pathu, and declaring Nabeesa ha

Kunjumohammed Vs Pathu — Partition | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/6TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

RSA.NO. 441 OF 2003 ( )

¶6

A.S. NO.175 OF 2001 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM O.S. NO.549 OF 1997 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM

¶7

APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 2 & 3:

¶8

1. KUNJUMOHAMMED, S/O.MAITHIAN, AGED 50 YEARS, NJARAKKATTU PUTHENPURAYIL, CHANGALAMOOLAYIL, KAKKANAD KARA.

¶9

2. SAINABA, W/O. KUNJUMOHAMMED, AGED 41 YEARS, NJARAKKATTU PUTHENPURAYIL, CHANGALAMOOLAYIL, KAKKANAD KARA.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶12

1. PATHU, D/O.NABEESA, 46 YEARS, PAREKATTIL ELAVAKATTU HOUSE, CHANGALAMOOLAYIL, KAKKANAD KARA.

¶13

2. MARIYUMMA, D/O. NABEESA, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALLIKIL KALLADY PURAYIDATHIL, KAKKANAD KARA.

¶14

R.S.A. No.441 of 2003

¶15

SUPPLEMENTAL 3^RD RESPONDENT IMPLEADED:

¶16

3. NABEESA, W/O.MAITHIAN, NJARAKKATTU PUTHENPURAYIL, CHANGALAMOOLAYIL, KKAKKANATTU KARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶17

SUPPLEMENTAL THIRD RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.5.2012 IN I.A. NO.1281 OF 2012.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR

¶19

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶21

==================================== R.S.A. No. 441 of 2003

¶22

==================================== Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2012

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

This Second Appeal arises from the judgment and decree of learned Sixth Additional District Judge, Ernakulam in A.S. No.175 of 2001 confirming the judgment and decree of learned Principal Sub Judge, Ernakulam in O.S. No.549 of 1997.

¶25

That is a suit filed by respondents 1 and 2 for declaration, partition and prohibitory injunction. Learned Sub Judge passed a preliminary decree for partition of item No.1 of the plaint schedule excluding item No.2. Appellants-defendants 2 and 3 challenged that judgment and decree in A.S. No.175 of 2001. Respondents 1 and 2-plaintiffs preferred a Cross Objection challenging that part of the decree which went against them. Learned Additional District Judge by the impugned judgment and decree dismissed the appeal, allowed the Cross Objection and a modified preliminary decree was passed in respect of item No.1. Hence this Second Appeal.

¶26

Parties were referred to the Mediation Centre on the request of learned counsel. The dispute is settled at the Mediation Centre. Appellants and respondents 1 and 2 and their counsel

¶27

R.S.A. No.441 of 2003

¶28

-: 2 :-

¶29

have signed the memorandum of mediation settlement agreement. The third respondent has affixed her thump impression in the presence of learned counsel for the appellants. It is requested that a decree may be passed in terms of the settlement.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel on both sides.

¶31

Having heard learned counsel and gone through the memorandum of mediation settlement agreement I am inclined to dispose of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

¶32

Resultantly, Second Appeal is disposed of as under:

¶33

(a) Settlement reached between the parties by way of mediation settlement signed by the counsel, appellants and respondents 1 and 2 (third respondent has put her thump impression in the presence of the counsel for the appellants) is accepted and recorded.

¶34

(b) In substitution of the judgment and decree of the Sixth Additional District Judge, Ernakulam in A.S. No.175 of 2001 modifying the judgment and decree of learned Principal Sub Judge,

¶35

R.S.A. No.441 of 2003

¶36

-: 3 :-

¶37

Ernakulam in O.S. No.549 of 1997, a preliminary decree is passed in terms of the settlement as under:

¶38

(i) Plaint schedule item No.1 is

¶39

partitioned into three shares.

¶40

(ii) Plot No.1 shown in the sketch

¶41

having an extent of 4.86 acres comprised

¶42

in Sy. No.400/9 is set apart to Mariyumma, first respondent/first plaintiff.

¶43

(iii) Plot No.3 shown in the sketch

¶44

having an extent of 23.132 Ares comprised in Sy. No.400/9 is set apart to Kunju Mohammed, first appellant/second defendant.

¶45

(iv) The additional third

¶46

respondent (impleaded in the appeal) who is the first defendant and second appellant/3^rd defendant has no claim to any share in the plaint schedule property.

¶47

R.S.A. No.441 of 2003

¶48

(v) Parties may move the learned

¶49

Principal Sub Judge, Ernakulam for passing a final decree in O.S. No.549 of 1997 in terms of the decree of this Court as provided under law.

¶50

respective costs.

¶51

mediation settlement agreement and the sketch appended to it will form part of the decree of this Court.

¶52

All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed.

¶53

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶54

The following corrections are made in the operative portion of the judgment dated 27.06.2012 in R.S.A. No.441/2003:

¶55

1. The word “acres” occurring in line 2 of clause (ii) is

¶56

R.S.A. No.441 of 2003

¶57

-: 5 :-

¶58

deleted and substituted with the word “Ares”.

¶59

After clause (ii), the following clause is inserted as

¶60

clause (iii):

¶61

“(iii) Plot No.2 shown in the sketch having an extent of 4.05 Ares comprised in Survey No.400/9 is set apart to Pathu, the 1^st respondent/1^st plaintiff”.

¶62

The existing clauses (iii) to (vii) are re-numbered as (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii).

¶63

Vide order dated 24.07.2012 in I.A. No.1912/2012.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

Registrar (Judicial)

¶66

vsv

Kunjumohammed v. Pathu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunjumohammed v. Pathu

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

Cheriyan Vs Wilson

Suresh Kumar Vs Kunju Krishnan Achary (Died), Girish Kumar and Others

Thanderi Radhakrishnan Nair Vs Savithri and Others

Jaya Sreedhar Vs Muraleedharan Nair

Rev.P.K.George Vs Indian Evangilickal Lutheran Church Trust Association

Valsamma Alex Vs K.M. Lillikutty