Allowed

Kunhi Lakshmi v. Prabhakaran

Kerala HC5 Jun 2013AS/33/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an appeal against the dismissal of a partition suit. The court set aside the impugned decree, treating the mediation settlement as part of the preliminary decree and directed the parties to execute the suit in terms of their settlement agreement.

What did the court decide?

The impugned decree dismissing the suit for partition is set aside. A preliminary decree is passed in terms of the mediation settlement. Any party may apply to pass a final decree.

Kunhi Lakshmi Vs Prabhakaran — Partition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/15TH JYAISHTA 1935

¶5

AS.No. 33 of 1991 (D)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 83/1986 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 30-05-1990

¶7

APPELLANT(S):

¶8

DIED

¶9

1. KUNHI LAKSHMI, W/O. KARUNAKARAN, RESIDING AT THEKKETHRA VEEDU, AMBATTU PALAYAM, CHITTOR VILLAGE, PALGHAT DISTRICT.

¶10

*** ADDL APPELLANT 2 TO 5 IMPLEADED.**

¶11

2. T.K.SATHJEEVAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, RESIDING AT THEKKETHRA VEEDU, AMBATTU PALAYAM, CHITTOR VILLAGE, PALGHAT DISTRICT.

¶12

3. T.K.RATHJEEVAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, ...DO....

¶13

4. T.K.JAGATHJEEVAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, ...DO....

¶14

5. T.K.AMARJEEVAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, ...DO....

¶15

ADDL. APPELLANTS A2 TO A5 AS IMPLEADED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED SOLE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 15/7/2010 IN I.A.NO.590/2007.

¶16

BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.MOHANDAS

¶17

SRI.T.M.SUNIL SMT.S.CHITHRA

Contd...2/-

AMV

: 2 :

AS.No. 33 of 1991 (D) RESPONDENT(S) :

¶22

1. PRABHAKARAN, S/O.CHITTOORI, AMBATTUPALAYAM, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALGHAT DISTRICT. (DIED, L.R.S IMPLEADED)

¶23

2. RAMASWAMY, S/O.CHITTOORI, DO......DO....

¶24

R2. DIED. MEMO RECORDED ADDL 11 TO 13 IMPLEADED. IT IS RECORDED THAT THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE APPEAL DIED AS PER ORDER DT: 26/10/2010 VIDE MEMO DT: 20/7/2010 CF NO.4048/2010

¶25

3. LAKSHMAN, S/O. CHITTOORI, DO.....DO......

¶26

4. RUGMINI, W/O. CHITTOORI, DO.....DO......

¶27

*** (R4 DIED) THE APPELLANT, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND RESPONDENT 6 TO 8 ARE RECORDED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 22.11.1995 VIDE MEMO (C.F.NO.10290/1995)**

¶28

5. A.P.VELAYUDHAN, H/O.JANAKI, DO......DO.......

¶29

6. A.V.NARAYANANKUTTY, BANK OF BARODA, ERNAKULAM BRANCH, ERNAKULAM.

¶30

7. A.V.SREENIVASAN, S/O. A.P.VELAYUDHAN, PREMADASAN, AMBATTU PALAYAM, CHITTUR VILLAGE.

¶31

8. PREMA CHANDRAN, S/O.A.P.VELAYUDHAN, C/O.C.CHANDRAN, INDIAN BANK LTD., LUCKNOW (U.P)

¶32

ADDL. RESPONDENT NO. 9 IMPLEADED

¶33

9 PRAVEEN, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, PARAYANOTTIL, CHITTOOR TALUK, CHITTOOR VILLAGE.

¶34

*** ADDL. R9 IS IMPLEADED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 31/7/03 ON I.A.NO.775/2003.**

¶35

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED FIRST RESPONDENT, (SUPPL. R9 ALREADY IN PARTY ARRAY)

¶36

10. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENT. (DIED) NALAYANI, W/O.PRABHAKARAN, RESIDING AT PARAYANKOTTIL, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK.

Contd...3

AMV

: 3 :

AS.No. 33 of 1991 (D)

¶41

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENTS 10 IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED FIRST RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 23/9/2004 ON I.A.NO.1329/2003.

¶42

IT IS RECORDED THAT ADDL.10TH RESPONDENT IS DIED AND ADDITIONAL 9TH RESPONDENT IS HER LEGAL HEIR AS PER ORDER DATED 5/6/2013 IN MEMO DATED 03/04/2013 IT: NO.2138/2013

¶43

ADDL. RESPONDENTS 11 TO 13

¶44

11. RAJESH, S/O. RAMASWAMY, AMBATTUPALAYAM, CHITTUR.

¶45

12. RAMESH, S/O. RAMASWAMY, AMBATTUPALAYAM, CHITTUR.

¶46

13. THANKAMANI, W/O.RAMASWAMY, AMBATTUPALAYAM, CHITTUR.

¶47

ADDL. R11 TO 13 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 13.12.2010 IN I.A.NO.3185/2010

¶48

ADDL.R9 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN R BY ADV. SRI.ASP.KURUP R, BY ADV. SRI.P.VELAYUDHAN R,R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.C.GOPI R,ADDL.R8 & 9 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN R,R12-13 BY ADV. SRI.M.C.GOPI

¶49

THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶50

AMV

¶51

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶52

¶53

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶54

..................................................

¶55

A.S.No. 33 of 1991 (G)

¶56

.......................................................

¶57

Dated this the 5^th day of June, 2013 JUDGMENT

¶58

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶59

This appeal is against the dismissal of the suit for partition. The matter is settled in mediation. The said mediation settlement/agreement is accepted and the impugned decree dismissing the suit is set aside. Resultantly, a preliminary decree is passed in terms of the settlement of the parties. The mediation settlement/compromise will be treated as part of the preliminary judgment and decree. Any among the parties may apply before the court below for passing a final decree in terms of the said mediation settlement/agreement. Parties are directed to mark appearance before the court below on 9^th July, 2013. Drafting of preliminary decree at this end is dispensed with.

¶60

2.Mediation settlement agreement will be treated as part of

¶61

the decree and the decree shall be drafted by making

¶62

A.S.No. 33 of 1991 (G)

¶63

¶64

appropriate engrossments in terms of the relevant provisions of CPC, Civil Rules of Practice and the law relating to stamps. The parties are directed to provide valuation statement in relation to each of their shares.

¶65

Appeal ordered accordingly.

¶66

sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶67

sd/- (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶68

AMV/6/6/

Kunhi Lakshmi v. Prabhakaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunhi Lakshmi v. Prabhakaran

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

P.T.Scaria Vs G.Sreekumaran

R.Nadarajan Vs Mohammed Shihab

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs K.M.Hameed

M.Paramasivan Vs L.Lincan

Subash Vs Sidhique

State of Kerala Vs K.C.Mathai