Allowed

M.G.Parameswara Panicker v. N.Sreedharan Nair

Kerala HC14 Feb 2017RFA/114/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two regular first appeals, the High Court of Kerala disposed of the matters based on a settlement agreement dated 18.01.2017 executed during mediation. The Court allowed the second appeal requiring dismissal of the underlying suit and set aside the decree in the first appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; decree and judgment set aside; suit dismissed; mediation settlement enforced.

M.G.Parameswara Panicker Vs N.Sreedharan Nair — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/25TH MAGHA, 1938

¶7

RFA.No. 114 of 2012 (I)

¶8

AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 03.10.2011 IN OS 318/2008 OF ADDL.SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶9

APPELLANT/DEFENDANT IN O.S. No.318/2004 : -

¶10

M.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOVINDA PILLAI, RESIDING AT GOVIND VIHAR, MARIYATHURUTH.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.S.NITHIN (ANCHAL)

¶12

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF IN O.S.No.318/2004 :-

¶13

N.SREEDHARAN NAIR, AGED 82 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI. NARAYANA PILLAI, RETIRED PENSIONER, “SREEKANTH HOUSE”, AZAD LANE, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM- 686 002.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY

¶15

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2017, ALONG WITH RFA. 85/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

DMR/-

¶17

P.N.RAVINDRAN & P. SOMARAJAN, JJ.

¶18

R.F.A. No. 114 of 2012 & R.F.A. No. 85 of 2013

¶19

Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2017

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

P.N. Ravindran, J.

¶22

R.F.A.No.114 of 2012 arises from the decree and

¶23

judgment passed by the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Kottayam on 03.10.2011 in O.S.No.318 of 2008. The appellant is the defendant therein. R.F.A.No.85 of 2013 arises from the decree and judgment passed by the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Kottayam in O.S.No.708 of 2008. The two suits were tried and disposed of by a common judgment delivered on 03.10.2011. By the said judgment, the two suits instituted by the very same plaintiff were decreed. A decree was passed in O.S.No.318 of 2008 allowing the plaintiff to realize the sum of Rs.12,45,167/- together with interest on the principal sum of Rs.10,00,000/- at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% per annum thereafter till realization. In O.S.No.708 of 2008, a decree was passed declaring Exhibit A7 sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant to be void and not binding on the plaintiff. The defendants in that suit were also

¶24

R.F.A. Nos.114/12 & 85/13

¶25

¶26

restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from transferring or alienating the plaint schedule property or any part thereof to any person till the decree in O.S.No.318 of 2008 is satisfied.

¶27

After these appeals were filed, mediation talks were held between the parties. In the mediation talks, the dispute between the parties was settled and a memorandum of settlement agreement was also entered into. The memorandum of settlement agreement dated 18.01.2017 entered into between the parties has also been placed on record. The said settlement agreement discloses that the appellant in these appeals, who is the common defendant in the two suits, has agreed to pay the sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff in full and final settlement on the claim in O.S.No.318 of 2008. The said payment is inclusive of the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeals. The parties have agreed that the court fee paid by the appellant can be refunded to the respondent. The parties have also agreed that the Fixed Deposit receipt of Rs.3,00,000/- produced by the respondent as security for withdrawing the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- deposited by the appellant pursuant to the interim orders of this court can also be withdrawn

¶28

R.F.A. Nos.114/12 & 85/13

¶29

¶30

unconditionally and he can be permitted to take back the Fixed Deposit Receipt. The parties have further agreed that the decree passed by the court below can be set aside and the appeal be disposed of in terms of the settlement.

¶31

In the light of the said settlement agreement, R.F.A.No.114 of 2012 is disposed of as settled out of court. It will be open to the respondent (the plaintiff in the two suits) to take back the Fixed Deposit receipt of Rs.3,00,000/- produced by him in the court below as security for withdrawing the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- deposited by the appellant/defendant. The court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal shall be refunded to the respondent/plaintiff. The fact that except the amount paid as court fee, the balance amount of Rs.2,41,892/- has already been paid by way of two demand drafts is recorded. The parties shall suffer their respective costs in this court.

¶32

In R.F.A. No. 85 of 2013 in the mediation talks, the parties have agreed that in view of the settlement arrived at in the connected R.F.A.No.114 of 2012 the instant appeal may be allowed, the decree and judgment passed by the court below may be set aside and O.S.No.708 of 2008 may be dismissed. In the light of the said settlement agreement, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned decree and judgment and

¶33

R.F.A. Nos.114/12 & 85/13 4

¶34

dismiss O.S.No.708 of 2008. The parties shall suffer their respective costs in this court. The court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal shall be refunded to the respondent/plaintiff as agreed to by and between the parties.

¶35

P.N.RAVINDRAN (JUDGE)

¶36

P. SOMARAJAN (JUDGE)

¶37

DMR/-

M.G.Parameswara Panicker v. N.Sreedharan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.G.Parameswara Panicker v. N.Sreedharan Nair

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

Sindhu Vs Biju @ Unni

P.K.Gopan Vs Rasheeda Sulaiman & Another

Mrs.Hyma Joseph and Others Vs Mrs Vanitha Haris and Others

Priyadarshini.S. Vs Jayakumar

A.P.Sajitha Vs N.Kunhimuhammed and Others

G.K.Ganesh Kumar Vs Sreerekha Ganesh and 2 Others