Allowed

Sethumadhavan v. Seena Bhaskaran

Kerala HC23 Oct 2017RFA/729/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a first appeal wherein parties reached a negotiated settlement during mediation. The court closed the appeal, directed the lower court to withdraw execution proceedings and vacate charges over property, and ordered a refund of court fees per the Kerala Court Fees Act.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is closed; execution proceedings E.P.No.692 of 2013 are to be withdrawn and charges on the plaint schedule property vacated; refund of court fee ordered.

Sethumadhavan Vs Seena Bhaskaran — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/1ST KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

RFA.No. 729 of 2014 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 1278/2011 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR DATED 01-07-2013

¶7

APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 1 & 2:

¶8

1. SETHUMADHAVAN, AGED 56 YEARS,

¶9

S/O.KUNNATHU THANKAMMA, CHULLIKAD DESOM, VILVATTOM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶10

2. REMANI, AGED 54 YEARS,

¶11

W/O.SETHUMADHAVAN, CHULLIKAD DESOM, VILVATTOM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.M.PREMCHAND

¶13

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

¶14

SEENA BHASKARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O MULAMKUDATH PRAKASH, ANANDAPARAMBU DESOM, ANJOORU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK 680 541

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) BY ADV. SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN

¶16

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2310-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

P.N. RAVINDRAN & DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JJ

¶19

¶20

R.F.A. No. 729 of 2014

¶21

- - - - Dated this the 23^rd day of October, 2017

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶25

This appeal has been preferred by the defendants in O.S.No.1278 of 2011 on the files of the Additional Sub Court, Thrissur, as per which they were directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,25,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation and with proportionate costs in the proceedings. It is alleged in this appeal that the judgment and decree of the court below has been issued on incorrect considerations and without appreciating the true facts.

¶26

When this appeal was taken up on 27.9.2017, the learned counsel for the parties informed this court that they were willing to explore an out of court settlement. On such submission being made, this court referred the parties to mediation. Today, it is submitted before us that the parties have entered into a negotiated settlement thus finding a quietus to their disputes. They also say that a memorandum of settlement has been entered into by them under the aegis of the mediation centre.

¶27

We have examined the settlement, placed before us by the mediation centre, dated 10.10.2017. Under the settlement, the parties appear to have agreed to settle their disputes on the appellants paying an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty thousand) to the respondent. The settlement also says that the

¶28

R.F.A. No.729 of 2014 -2-

¶29

said amount has already been paid and that the respondent has received it on 5.8.2017. The respondent has also agreed in the settlement that E.P.No.692 of 2013 filed by her for execution of the decree will be withdrawn and that she has no objection in releasing the charge on the plaint schedule property, as was ordered in the decree, since the entire consolidated settlement amount of Rs.7,50,000/- has already been paid.

¶30

On going through the settlement as mentioned above, we see that there are presently no disputes subsisting between the parties and that nothing survives for consideration further in this appeal.

¶31

In such circumstances, we close this appeal accepting the memorandum of settlement between the parties and direct the court below to close E.P.No.692 of 2013, recording full satisfaction of the decree and to vacate all orders creating charge over the plaint schedule property, in terms of the compromise entered into by the parties. The appeal is thus closed and we direct the Registry to refund the entire court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal to the appellants, in terms of Section 69 A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959.

¶32

sd/- P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE

¶33

sd/-

¶34

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶35

Sethumadhavan v. Seena Bhaskaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sethumadhavan v. Seena Bhaskaran

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

Navin Thomas Vs Wilson Thomas

Jomon Joseph Vs Vijayakumar

Union Bank of India Vs M/S.G.K.Engineering Works

University of Calicut Vs Prebin

R. Nitya Vs Dhanlaxmi Bank

Dr.N.Madhu Vs Dr.S.D.Singh