Allowed

Rubeena v. Anikkadan Moosas Son Abdul Nazar

Kerala HC11 Nov 2020RFA/125/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a civil appeal challenging a decree for specific performance. Parties settled via a memorandum under Section 89 CPC during pendency. The Court recorded the compromise and passed a decree incorporating the agreement terms regarding payment of Rs. 45 lakh.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is disposed of by a compromise decree incorporating the settlement agreement as part of the decree. No refund of court fee is ordered as appellants have leave to sue in forma pauperis.

Rubeena Vs Anikkadan Moosas Son Abdul Nazar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN TEE EIGE COT'RT OF KERJAI,A AT ERNAKUI,AM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE EONOT'RABLE !4R. iN'STICE T.V.A}IILKT'IdAR

¶4

MDNESDAY, THE 11TE DAY OF NOVEMBER 2O2O / ZOrn KARTEIKA, L942

¶5

RFA.No.125 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE JnDGMErfT & DECREE rN OS 239/2OL2 DATED 31.08.2018 ON TEE FrLE OF TEE SttB COIRT, !{Ar{JERr

¶7

APPELLATiITS/ SUPPL. DEFEIIDAI{TTS 2, 4 & 5:

¶8

1 RI'BEENA, AGED 33 YEjARS, wlo. SAIiIDEEP MOETn'DEEEN, VAI,AIT{BOOR A}!SOM, TEIRT,RKKAD DESOM, PERIIiITEATD{AI{NA TArrUK, MAr,AppttRAM DTSTRTCT 679 325.

¶9

2 NAEAr{irrYA, AGED 8 rEiARS, (MTNOR REPRESETiTTED By MOTEER RITBEENA) , D/O SAT.IDEEP MOEIn'DEEEN,

¶10

VAI,AI{BOOR AII{SOM, TEIRT,RKKAD DESOM, PERINTEAI.I{AI{NA TALI'K, }IALAPPI'RAI{ DISTRICT 679 325.

¶11

3 NASEADA, AGED 2 Y:EjARS,

¶12

(MTNOR REPRESEIiTTED By I4OTHER RITBEENA) , D/O. SATiIDEEP MOEIN'DEEEN,

¶13

VAI.AII{B@R AMSOM, TETRURKKAD DESOM, PERIIUTEAI;D{AI{NA TAr,UK, MAIAPPI'RA!! DISTRICT 679 325.

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

SRI.K. SEIBILI NAEA SI'fT . A. LOIf,SY

¶16

RESPO!{DENTS/PI,AITiITIFF E DEFEIIDAI.ITS 1 E 3:

¶17

1 AI{IKKADAI{ MOOSA'S SON ABDT'L NAZAR. AGED 57 YEJARS,

¶18

TEAZEEKKODE AI\4S|OM, DESOM, PERIIITEAI.IIAIINA TALIIK, BY MT'KTEIYAR AGENT M,E.A!4TIED IBRAEIM, 57 YEJARS , S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, VATTATEOOR, VAI,APPTL EOUSE, KOI,ATEOOR P.O.,

¶19

KOLATEOOR Atrr{SiOM, PERINTEAII'IAI{NA TAIT'K 579 338.

¶20

SAI{DEEP MOETDHEEN, AGED 42^yEjARS, S /O . OTTUPARJAI{BIL IIUNEI}IOTDU,

¶21

VAITAMBOOR }MSOM, TEIRITRKKAD DESOM, PERIlifTEAnlnr{l{A TAJ,UK, }N,APPT'RA}4 DISTRTCT 579 325.

¶22

RFA.No.L25 OF 2019

¶23

NrEAI{ }OErn'DEEEN, AGED 20 YEARS, s/o SAI|DEEP MOEIn'DEEEN, VALAMBOOR AMSOM, TETRITRKKAD DESOM, PERT}iTTEAI,I,IAI{NA TAI,T'K, MII,APPT,RAIT{ DISTRICT PIN - 679325

¶24

R1 BY ADV. SRI.dIEMSEEED EAFTZ R1 BY ADV. SI'fr.T.S.SREEKUITY R2-3 BY ADV. SRT.S.RAI{JrT (KOTTAYAI'{) R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.@KT'L DAS V.V.H.

¶25

TEIS REGI'I.AR FIRST APPEJAL HAVING BEEN FTNALLY HEJARD 11.11 .2020, TEE COI'RT ON TEE SA}!E DAY DELI\ZERED TEE FOLI,OSTING:

RFA.No.L25 OF 2019

JT'DGMENT

Decree granting specific performance of

¶30

contract of sare was charlenged by the defendants in O.S.No.239/2012 in this appeal. During the pendency of this proceeding, parties came to term and settl-ed the disputes as between them. A memorandum of agreement u/ s .89 of cpc dated 4.rr.2020 was filed before this court. The terms of compromise are accordingly recorded and a compromise decree is passed.

¶31

In the result, this appeal is disposed of in terms of compromise. The memorandum of agreement dated 4 . rr . 2020 shal- I f orm part of the compromi se decree. since the apperlants have been alrowed to sue in forma pauperis, the question of refund of court fee does not arise.

¶32

sd/ -

¶33

(r'

¶34

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶35

R.F.A. No.LzS of 2019

¶36

Rubeena and others

¶37

: Appellants

¶38

Anikkada n MoosdSilJ W.:,nut'

¶39

: Respondents

¶40

¶41

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 89 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE READ WITH RULES 24 & 25 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION), RULES, 2OO8I

¶42

The parties to the above matter on facilitation in mediation and in consultation with their respective counsels has agreed to settle their dispute with regard to the above matter pertaining to agreement for sale of immovable property, on the following terms and conditions:

¶43

o 1' The appellants are the defendants 2,4 and 5 and the respondents are the nl11!rr^and defendants 1 and 3. The actual dispute is between the appelants W . I, in this appeal. They have settled the dispute pertaining to the above matter, *d"'"'

Ru L eeht

www

( t'.o U

Xerala Slate Mediation anrt Ctnciliation Centre
r'';r';'a " -r,
'-gW .tr

¶48

¶49

¶50

The appellants and .respondent:_ , ?T , 1"y" :,greed to pay a totat amount of Rs.45,00,000/- ( Forty Five Lakh Only) towards the entire claim of the l't respondent who is the plaintiff in the suit for specific performance of the agreement executed by the defendants, This includes the return of advance amount paid in the agreement, The entire payment should be effected within l't March, 2O2T. However, if the defendants who are appellants and respondents 2 and 3 , fails to pay the amount as agreed herein, the l't respondent is at liberty to get this settlement agreement executed as a decree in the above appeal with 12% interest per annum and cost and consequences of execuiion by proceeding against the suit property to realize the amount.

¶51

The balance consideration for getting the sale deed executed of Rs. 5,00,000(Five Only) deposited by the plaintiff in the sub Court Manjeri in the suit O.S No. 23912OL2 shall be withdrawn by the l't respondent/plaintiff and the other parties to the suit have no objection in withdrawal of the said amount.

¶52

The eligible court fee paid in the above appeal if any may be refunded to the appellants as the matter is settled in mediation. .r'.

Ru} e-er)L w Ww

Since the time for payment is fixed to be on l't March, 2oZL and yet to be complied with, this Honourable Court may be pleased to pass a decree in terms of this settlement agreement in the above appeal incorporating this settlement agreement as part of the decree of this Honourable court.

¶57

Hence it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to pass a decree accordingly in the interest of justice.

¶58

¶59

Dated this the 4th day of November, 2020.

¶60

Appellants

¶61

Respondents

¶62

Rubeena W

¶63

Anikkadan Moos{sW soq +5A,1 rtrautl4rv P70,4)

¶64

Nahanjiyo {Minor representeo offin"r Rubeena}

¶65

NaShada{Minor represented by Mother Rubeena} I w ,\1 Sandeep Muhayudheen o ,\ {$} Nihan ttluhayudheen K" .sgiEtf-r r+grvdA Counsel for the Appellants Counsel for the l't Respo Q-.ttLr,,u:^{: t(9.3<} \tqq.f

¶66

P*.^{(^-t} -t-D"-^v.v'tr. </4ro - a(uts

Rubeena v. Anikkadan Moosas Son Abdul Nazar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rubeena v. Anikkadan Moosas Son Abdul Nazar

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Suneesh and Others

Baby Alex Vs M/S.Ullattil Agencies

Babu Vs Vijayan

Rose Mary Joslin @ Rose Mary Joseph Vs Mable

V.M.Mujeeb Vs Bright Joseph

Parameswaran Namboodiri Vs Sajith