Disposed

Krishnan & Others v. Thankappan

Kerala HC31 May 2012RSA/976/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal regarding a right of way dispute. The dispute was settled by the parties through mediation. The High Court accepted the settlement and passed a decree incorporating the terms of the compromise agreement instead of the lower courts' judgment and decree.

What did the court decide?

Decree passed in terms of the settlement shifting the road boundary and adjusting land rights; appellants paid respondents ₹1,38,000.

Krishnan & Others Vs Thankappan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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 31ST DAY OF MAY 2012/10TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

RSA.NO. 976 OF 2005 ( )

¶6

----------------------------------AS.100/2004 OF DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM OS.384/2000 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, VAIKOM

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶8

KRISHNAN, S/O.SANKU, KIZHAKKEPERUMASSERY VEETTIL, POLASSERY BHAGOM PADINJATTUMCHERRY, PADINJAREMURI,NADUVILE VILLAGE.

¶9

KARUPPAN, S/O.NANU, KIZHAKKEPERUMASSERY VEETTIL, POLASSERY BHAGOM PADINJATTUMCHERRY, PADINJAREMURI, NADUVILE VILLAGE.

¶10

SUDHAKARAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, KANNATHARA VEETTIL, POLASSERY BHAGOM PADINJATTUMCHERRY, PADINJAREMURI, NADUVILE VILLAGE.

¶11

BHASKARAN, S/O.KUNJAN, ODATTUVEETTIL, POLASSERY BHAGOM, PADINJATTUMCHERRY, PADINJAREMURI NADUVILE VILLAGE.

¶12

ARAVINDAKSHAN, S/O.SANKARAN, VATTATHARA VEETTIL, POLASSERY BHAGOM PADINJATTUMCHERRY, PADINJAREMURI, NADUVILE VILLAGE.

¶13

ARAVINDAKSHAN, SS/O.KUNJAN, ODATTUTHARA VEETTIL, POLASSERY BHAGOM PADINJATTUMCHERRY, PADINJAREMURI, NADUVILE VILLAGE.

¶14

T.S.SUKUMARAN, S/O.SANKU, THARAYIL VEETTIL, POLASSERY BHAGOM PADINJATTUMCHERRY, PADINJAREMURI, NADUVILE VILLAGE (DIED).

¶15

ADDL. 8. RADHAMANI, W/O. LATE T.S. SUKUMARAN,

¶16

THARAYIL VEETTIL, POLASSERY BHAGOM,

¶17

PADINJATTUMCHERRY, PADINJAREMURI, NADUVILA VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶18

R.S.A. No.976 of 2005

¶19

ADDL. 9. SAJITHAMOL T.S., D/O.LATE T.S. SUKUMARAN, THARAYIL VEETTIL, POLASSERY BHAGOM, PADINJATTUMCHERRY, PADINJAREMURI, NADUVILA VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶20

ADDL. 10. SIJA T.S., D/O. LATE T.S. SUKUMARAN, THARAYIL VEETIL, POLASSERY BHAGOM, PADINJATTUMCHERRY PADINJAREMURI, NADUVILA VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶21

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED 7^TH APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 8 TO 10 AS AS PER ORDER DATED 30.11.2011 IN I.A. NO.1916 OF 2011

¶22

BY ADVS.SRI.N.P.SAMUEL

¶23

SRI.T.K.CHINNAN

¶24

SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶26

THANKAPPAN, KARAYIL CHIRAYIL VEETTIL

¶27

PADINATTUMCHERRY PADINJAREMURI, NADUVILE VILLAGE.

¶28

LAKSHMI, W/O.THANKAPPAN, KARAYIL CHIRAYIL VEETTIL

¶29

PADINJATTUMCHERRY PADINJAREMURI, NADUVILE VILLAGE.

¶30

BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE

¶31

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶33

R.S.A. No.976 of 2005

¶34

Dated this the 31^st day of May, 2012.

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

This second appeal arises from the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Kottayam in A.S.No.100 of 2004 modifying the judgment and decree of learned Munsiff, Vaikom in O.S.No.384 of 2000.

¶37

The dispute concerns right of way. Learned Munsiff decreed the suit in part restraining the appellants from committing waste, cutting and removing trees, grabbing further portion of plaint schedule items Nos.1 and 2 or widening item No.3. The first appellate court in modification of that decree allowed respondents/plaintiffs to recover `500/- by way of damages from the appellants and also directed appellants by way of mandatory injunction to restore item No.3 to its original position. That judgment and decree are under challenge at the instance of the appellants.

¶38

As requested by counsel on both parties this appeal was sent to the Mediation Centre. The Mediator vide letter dated 26.05.2012 has reported that parties have settled the dispute in accordance with the terms of settlement signed by them.

¶39

I have heard learned counsel.

¶40

It is seen from the memorandum of settlement dated 04.05.2012

¶41

signed by the parties and their counsel that parties have settled the dispute in

¶42

RSA No.976/2005 2

¶43

accordance with the terms mentioned therein. Learned counsel requested that in substitution of the judgment and decree of the courts below, a decree may be passed in terms of the settlement.

¶44

Having heard learned counsel and gone through the terms of the settlement I am inclined to allow the request.

¶45

Resultantly this Second Appeal is disposed of as under:

¶46

i. The compromise entered between the appellants and respondents is accepted and recorded.

¶47

ii. In substitution of the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Kottayam in A.S.No.100 of 2004 and of learned Munsiff, Vaikom in O.S.No.384 of 2000, a decree is passed in terms of the settlement as under:

¶48

(a) The road which is now lying through the middle of the respondents' property will be shifted to its western boundary. On such shifting, the present road will cease to exist and will become part of respondents' property.

¶49

(b) The respondents shall permit appellants to construct a 10 (ten) feet wide road along the western boundary of their property in south-north direction. The portion of the road in west-east direction will be constructed through the properties of the appellants. The respondents also will give one feet wide additional land at the north-west corner of the road to construct a bell-mouth for easy access of vehicles.

¶50

(c) Out of the area necessary for constructing a 10 (ten) feet wide road, the respondents shall give free of cost the land for 3 feet road and for the balance land, the appellants shall pay to the respondents its value at the rate of

¶51

RSA No.976/2005 3

¶52

`1,50,000/- per cent.

¶53

(d) The road has been measured and demarcated by the parties on 22.04.2012 in the presence of the mediator and the counsel and sketch has been prepared showing the lie, measurements and boundaries of the road, which is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-1. It is mutually agreed that the appellants are liable to pay to the respondents the value of 0.918 cents of land, as per clause 3 and the amount is determined as `1,38,000/- (rupees one lakh thirty eight thousand only).

¶54

(e) The above amount of `1,38,000/- has been paid on

¶55

04.05.2012 by the appellants to the respondents in the presence of the mediator and the counsel.

¶56

III. The compromise and Annexure-I, sketch appended thereto will form part of this decree.

¶57

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

¶58

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.

¶59

cks

Krishnan & Others v. Thankappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnan & Others v. Thankappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raichel Raju Vs Hilari

George Vs George

Suresh Vs Antony

M.G.Vinodan Vs Anitha Suresh

C.H.Subair Vs C.H.Abdul Razak and Others

Ambika Kumari and Another Vs Usha