Allowed

Ananda Panicker Alex @ A.K. Alex v. Krishna Panicker Radhakrishnan

Kerala HC28 Jan 2016OP(C)/373/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that a compromise decree cannot be binding on a co-owner if they were absent during the settlement. The court allowed the petitioner's original petition and set aside the compromise decree, directing the appellate court to decide the appeal on merits.

What did the court decide?

The compromise decree is set aside; the appellate court is directed to dispose of the appeal on merits.

Ananda Panicker Alex @ A.K. Alex Vs Krishna Panicker Radhakrishnan — Partition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/8TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

OP(C).No. 373 of 2015 (O)

¶6

AS.NO. 145/2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA

¶7

PETITIONER :

¶8

ANANDA PANICKER ALEX @ A.K. ALEX, ADVOCATE, S/O.ANANDA PANICKER, ''THAMBURU'', VENNALA P.O., KOCHI-682 028.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SRI.A.SANTHOSHKUMAR SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

*1. KRISHNA PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN, KOYIKKAL VEETTIL, KANNAMANGALAM VADAKKUM MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PIN-690 106. (DELETED)

¶12

*2. MADHAVI SUSEELADEVI,

¶13

KAMALALAYATHIL, CHIRAKKADAVAM MURI,

¶14

KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, PIN-690 502. (DELETED)

¶15

*3. PURUSHOTHAMA PANICKER CHANDRAN,

¶16

KAMALALAYATHIL, CHIRAKKADAVAM MURI,

¶17

KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, PIN-690 502 (DELETED)

¶18

*4. MADHAVI THANKAMONY,

¶19

KAMALALAYATHIL, CHIRAKKADAVAM MURI,

¶20

KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, PIN-690 502 (DELETED)

¶21

*5. MADHAVI KAMALA DEVI,

¶22

KAMALALAYATHIL, CHIRAKKADAVAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, PIN-690 502 (DELETED)

¶23

*R1 TO R5 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK AND COST OF THE PETITIONERS, AS PER ORDER DATED 3/7/2015 IN IA.NO.9069/2015

¶24

6. NARAYANA PANICKER RAJAN,

¶25

VARANAPPALLY RAJA BHAVANAM VEETTIL, PUTHUPPALLY VADAKKUM MURI, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE, PIN-690 527.

2/-

sts

-2-

OP(C).NO.373/2015

¶30

7. NARAYANA PANICKER RAJENDRAN, VARANAPPALLY RAJA BHAVANAM VEETTIL, PUTHUPPALLY VADAKKUM MURI, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE, PIN-690 527.

¶31

*8. ANANDA PANCIKER PRASANTHA PANICKER @ A.K.PRASANTH,

¶32

(DIED-LRS RECORDED) KUMPOLIL HOUSE, PUTHUPPALLY VADAKKUM MURI, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE, PIN-690 527. (DIED ON 17/11/2014).

¶33

*9. SUDHA BAI,

¶34

W/O.ANANDA PANCIKER PRASATHA PANICKER @ A.K.PRASANTH, KUMPOLIL HOUSE, PUTHUPPALLY VADAKKUM MURI, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE, PIN-690 527

¶35

*10. MINTU THANKACHY,

¶36

S/O.ANANDA PANCIKER PRASATHA PANICKER @ A.K.PRASANTH, KUMPOLIL HOUSE, PUTHUPPALLY VADAKKUM MURI, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE, PIN-690 527

¶37

*11. ROHIT RUSSEL,

¶38

S/O.ANANDA PANCIKER PRASATHA PANICKER @ A.K.PRASANTH, KUMPOLIL HOUSE, PUTHUPPALLY VADAKKUM MURI, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE, PIN-690 527

¶39

*R9 TO R11 ARE RECORDED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED R8 AS PER ORDER DATED 3/7/2015 VIDE MEMO DATED 26/6/15 BEARING CF NO.8824/15

¶40

R6 BY ADVS. SMT.SABINA JAYAN

¶41

SRI.R.SREEDHARAN NAIR

¶42

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

sts

¶44

OP(C).No. 373 of 2015 (O)

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶47

EXT.P1.	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN AS NO.237/2001 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKKARA.
EXT.P2.	TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW2 COMMISSIONER IN OS NO.256/1967 ON THE FILE MUNSIFF'S COURT, HRIPAD.
EXT.P3.	TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT DATED 29/7/2008 IN OS.NO. 256/1967 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, HARIPAD ALONG WITH SKETCH.
EXT.P4.	TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL DECREE DATED 6/4/2009 IN IA.NO.1532/199 IN OS.NO. 256/1967 OF MUNSIFF'C COURT, HARIPAD
EXT.P5.	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN AS.NO. 145/2009 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKKARA.
EXT.P6.	TRUE COPY OF THE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREED UPON THE APPELLANT AND THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7.	TRUE COPY OF THE EP NO.79/2014 IN OS NO.56/1967 OF MUSIFF'S COURT, KAYAMKULAM.
EXT.P8.	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE DECREE WITH THE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AND SKETCH BEING THE PART OF DECREE.

¶48

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

¶54

O.P.(C)No.373 of 2015

¶55

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2016

¶56

JUDGMENT

¶57

Petitioner was the 5^th defendant in O.S.No.256 of 1967 of Munsiff Court, Haripad. The suit was for partition of immovable properties. He is a co-owner. A preliminary decree was passed. Final decree also was passed later. The 8^th defendant challenged the final decree in A.S.No.145 of 2009 of Additional District Court, Mavelikara. The said appellant and 6^th defendant entered into a compromise, on the basis of which the appellate court passed a final decree. This is challenged.

¶58

Heard.

¶59

Since the petitioner is a co-owner of the property, in his absence a compromise decree could not have been passed. The decree is not binding on him. All the co-owners could not settle the matters among themselves. The only option before the court was to dispose of the appeal on merits. The final decree passed on the basis of the compromise between two of the co-owners alone is not valid. It is liable to be set aside.

¶60

In the result, this Original Petition is allowed. The compromise decree is set aside. The appellate court is directed to dispose of the appeal on merits as early as possible.

¶61

Sd/- K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶62

cms

¶63

/True copy/ P.S.to Judge

Ananda Panicker Alex @ A.K. Alex v. Krishna Panicker Radhakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananda Panicker Alex @ A.K. Alex v. Krishna Panicker Radhakrishnan

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

V.K.Abdul Salam Vs Nabeesa

Soman Vs Noufal

A.K.Asharaff Vs Joseph

Pushpalatha Vs Sindhu

M. Abdul Latheef Vs Hareesh

Nmr Siraj Vs City Plaza Shop Owners Association