This judgment held that a compromise decree is not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court directed the aggrieved party to file a review application instead of filing an appeal or a writ petition.
Petition dismissed; liberty allowed to file review application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/17TH KARTHIKA, 1938
UNNUMB.OPC.No. 688 of 2016 () -----------------------------OS 578/2012 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM.
PETITIONERS:
1. ANCY BABU, W/O.BABU AND D/O.THOMAS @ MICHAEL THOMAS, CHRISTIAN, HOUSE WIFE, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANIMURIYIL, VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, THRICKODITHANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAMURI.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. (NOW RESIDING AT KUZHIPPALLIL HOUSE, CHAMAMPATHAL, ULLAYAM BHAGOM, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
2. MICHAEL THOMAS, SD/O.THOMAS @ MICHAEL THOMAS, CHRISTIAN, RETIRED COMPANY EMPLOYEE, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANIMURIYIL, VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, THRICKODITHANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAMURI.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB
RESPONDENTS:
1. CELINAMMA JOSEPH, AGED 68 YEARS, W/O.JOSEPH, MANIMURI HOUSE, VADAKKEKKARA, THIKKODITHANAM VILLAGE, PIN CODE-683 522.
2. ELSAMMA @ ELSY, AGED 54, W/O.JOSE, MANIKURI HOUSE, VADAKKEKKARA, THIKKODITHANAM VILLAGE, PIN CODE - 683 522.
3. SHINY THOMAS, W/O.LATE THOMAS THOMAS, AGED 50 YEARS, CHRISTIAN, HOUSE WIFE, MANIMURIYIL VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, THRICKODITHANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAMURI.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DT. NOW RESIDING AT THAVALATHIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY VILLAGE, MARKET BHAGOM, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DT., PIN CODE - 686 103.
--2--
--2--
UNNUMB.OPC.No. 688 of 2016 ()
4. ANGIN THOMAS, S/O.LATE THOMAS THOMAS, CHRISTIAN, AGED 23 YEARS, MANIMURIYIL VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, THRICKODITHANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAMURI.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DT. NOW RESIDING AT THAVALATHIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY VILLAGE, MARKET BHAGOM, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DT., PIN CODE - 686 103.
5. CEILA THOMAS, D/O.LATE THOMAS THOMAS, AGED 15 YEARS, MANIMURIYIL VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, THRICKODITHANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAMURI.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DT. NOW RESIDING AT THAVALATHIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY VILLAGE, MARKET BHAGOM, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DT., REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SHINY THOMAS, PIN CODE - 686 103.
THIS UNNUMBERED OPC HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
UNNUMB.OPC.No. 688 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
....................................... ZOP(C).No.688 of 2016
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2016.
JUDGMENT
Registry has raised an objection that being a compromise decree, the petitioners cannot file original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and it was posted for hearing at the request of the counsel for the petitioners before the bench on this aspect. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since there are glaring irregularities in recording of the compromise and it is a compromise decree, no appeal will lie and an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India alone will be maintainable. The objection raised by the Registry that it is an appealable order is not correct. In view of the dictum laid down in the decision reported in Banwari Lal v. Smt. Chando Devi (through L.R) and Another (1993 KHC 880), the compromise decree can be made appealable only if recording of compromise was objected by the party and that was overruled and a decree has been passed on the basis of the compromise and not otherwise. The remedy of the petitioners is to file a review of that order recording the compromise, if they are aggrieved by recording the compromise showing the irregularities in recording the compromise. So the remedy of the petitioners is neither to file an appeal nor an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India but to file an application to review the order if they are aggrieved by
ZOP(C).No.688 of 2016 2
recording of the compromise and passing of the decree on the basis of the compromise.
With the above liberty, this petition is dismissed.
Sd/K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a compromise decree is maintainable via a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Whether Article 226 or Article 227 is the correct remedy to challenge a compromise decree recording irregularities.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
BANWARI LAL V SMN. CHANDO DEVIExplained¶35
Banwari Lal v. Smt. Chando Devi (through L.R) and Another (1993 KHC 880)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
ANCY BABU
MICHAEL THOMAS
CELINAMMA JOSEPH
ELSAMMA
SHINY THOMAS
ANGIN THOMAS
K. RAMAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
