Daniel v. Shajan
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court disposed of Regular First Appeals No. 322 of 2018 and 120 of 2019 by confirming a compromise entered into by the parties pursuant to Section 89 of the CPC, which was recorded as a decree.
What did the court decide?
Appeals disposed of in terms of compromise; memorandum of agreement forms part of decree; refund of full court fee paid.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
RFA.No.322 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.NO.216/2012 DATED 18-02-2017 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
DANIEL
AGED 55 YEARS S/O. DANIEL, AMBALATHAKIDIYIL HOUSE, EZHAKKARANADU KARA, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK
BY ADVS. SRI.P.M.JOSHI SMT.SIJI K.PAUL
RESPONDENTS/2ND PLAINTIFF & ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS 3 TO 5:
1 SHAJAN
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the regular first appeals filed against the decree in O.S. No. 216/2012 be disposed of in terms of the compromise reached between the parties.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Daniel
- appellant
Shajan
- appellant
Lissy
- appellant
Albin T. Jose
- appellant
Ben ThurutheMMel
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court