Dismissed

Grace Savithri v. Adlein Pushpaveni

Kerala HC1 Nov 2021RFA/139/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two first appeals filed against a final decree in a partition suit. The appeals were quashed because the parties had settled the dispute through mediation, resulting in a settlement agreement.

What did the court decide?

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the mediation settlement agreement dated 11.10.2021, with no modification of the final decree regarding the first respondent.

Grace Savithri Vs Adlein Pushpaveni — Partition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶6

MONDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021/ 10TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶7

RFA NO. 134 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE FINAL DECREE DATED 15.11.2019 IN F.D.I.A.NO.965 OF 2014 IN O.S.NO.184 OF 2013 OF SUB COURT, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE APPELLANT:

¶9

MARY ANITHA LATHA AGED 58 YEARS, W/O. SASIDHARAN K.T, COLLEGE PROFESSOR, HOD ZOOLOGY DEPARTMENT, M.C.COLLEGE,CALICUT-673001, RESIDING AT 'LAYA',33/4176, NEAR MALAPARAMBA HOUSING COLONY, CHEVAYUR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, CALICUT-673009. BY ADVS. SRI.NIRMAL. S SMT.VEENA HARI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 ADLEIN PUSHPAVENI AGED 75 YEARS W/O JUSTIN SREEDHARAN,RTD.TEACHER, 'SHALOM',PONNATH PARAMBA,GOLF LINK ROAD, CHEAVAYUR VILLAGE,KOZHIKODE TALUK,CALICUT-673009. 2 NELSON DEVADAS, AGED 67 YEARS S/O ADOLF SADANANDAN,M7/42, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD COLONY, MALAPARAMBA,CHEVAYUR VILLAGE, CALICUT-673009.

¶12

¶13

R.F.A.Nos. 134 and 139 of 2020

¶14

3 ROSILY THEJA, AGED 61 YEARS HOUSE WIFE,W/O PRAKASH MARTIN,M 10/43, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD COLONY, MALAPARAMBA,CHEVAYUR VILLAGE,CALICUT-673009.

¶15

4 GRACE SAVITHRI, AGED 75 YEARS W/O JOSEPH KULANGARA,HOME AFFAIRS, PLOT NO.50,SAI SECTION,AMBARNATH EAST, THANA DISTRICT,MUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA-400601.

¶16

BY ADVS. SRI.BALAGOPAL FOR R1, R2 & R3 SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ FOR R1 SRI.A.SANOOJ FOR R1 SMT.RIA ELIZABETH JOSEPH FOR R4

¶17

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 01.11.2021, ALONG WITH RFA.139/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

R.F.A.Nos. 134 and 139 of 2020

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶21

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶22

MONDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶23

R.F.A. NO. 139 OF 2020

¶24

AGAINST THE FINAL DECREE DATED 15.11.2019 IN F.D.I.A.NO.965 OF 2014 IN O.S.NO.184 OF 2013 OF SUB COURT, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE

APPELLANT/S:

GRACE SAVITHRI

AGED 75 YEARS

W/O. JOSEPH KULANGARA , HOME AFFAIRS, PLOT NO.50, SAI SECTION, AMBARNATH EAST, THANA DISTRICT, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400 601

¶29

BY ADVS. SRI.NIRMAL. S SMT.VEENA HARI

¶30

RESPONDENT/S:

¶31

1 ADLEIN PUSHPAVENI

¶32

W/O. JUSTIN SREEDHARAN, RTD.TEACHER 'SHALOM', PONNATH PARAMBA, GOLF LINK ROAD, CHEAVAYUR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, CALICUT-673 009.

¶33

2 NELSON DEVADAS AGED 67 YEARS

¶34

S/O. ADOLF SADANANDAN, M7/42,KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD COLONY, MALAPARAMBA, CHEVAYUR VILLAGE, CALICUT-673 009.

¶35

3 ROSILY THEJA AGED 61 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, W/O PRAKASH MARTIN, M 10/43, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD COLONY, MALAPARAMBA,

¶36

¶37

R.F.A.Nos. 134 and 139 of 2020

¶38

CHEVAYUR VILLAGE, CALICUT-673 009.

¶39

4 MARY ANITHA LATHA, AGED 58 YEARS, COLLEGE PROFESSOR, W/O. SASIDHARAN .K.T., HOD ZOOLOGY DEPARTMENT, M.C. COLLEGE, CALICUT-673 001, RESIDING AT 'LAYA',33/4176, NEAR MALAPARAMBA HOUSING COLONY, CHEVAYUR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, CALICUT-673 009.

¶40

BY ADVS. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ FOR R1 SRI.A.SANOOJ FOR R1 SRI.BALAGOPAL FOR R2 & R3

¶41

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 01.11.2021, ALONG WITH RFA.134/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

¶43

R.F.A.Nos. 134 and 139 of 2020

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶46

R.F.A.No. 134 of 2020:- The appellant is the 2^nd defendant in O.S.No.184 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Vatakara, a suit for partition. The appellant has filed this appeal under Order XLI Rule 1 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking an order to set aside the final decree dated 15.11.2019 in F.D.I.A.No.965 of 2014 in O.S.No.184 of 2013.

¶47

On 21.12.2020, when this appeal came up for admission, respondents 2 and 3 entered appearance through counsel. Notice was ordered to respondents 1 and 4 by speed post. In I.A.No.1 of 2020, this Court granted an interim stay of the proceedings in E.P.Nos.18 and 19 of 2020 in O.S.No.184 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Vatakara, for a period of one month. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force.

¶48

¶49

R.F.A.Nos. 134 and 139 of 2020

¶50

R.F.A.No. 139 of 2020:- The appellant is the 1^st

¶51

defendant in O.S.No.184 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Vatakara, a suit for partition. The appellant has filed this appeal under Order XLI, Rule 1 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking an order to set aside the final decree dated 15.11.2019 in F.D.I.A.No.965 of 2014 in O.S.No.184 of 2013.

¶52

On 29.07.2020, when this appeal came up for

¶53

admission, this Court issued notice to the respondents. On 21.12.2020, in I.A.No.2 of 2020, this Court granted an interim stay of the proceedings in E.P.Nos.18 and 19 of 2020 in O.S.No.184 of 2013 of the Sub Court, Vatakara, for a period of one month. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force.

¶54

On 06.09.2021, when the above appeals came up for

¶55

consideration, it was submitted by the learned counsel on both sides that there is every likelihood of the matter being settled, if sent for mediation. Therefore, the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation Sub Centre, Vatakara on

¶56

¶57

R.F.A.Nos. 134 and 139 of 2020

¶58

14.09.2021.

¶59

Today, when these appeals are taken up for consideration, it is submitted by the learned counsel on both sides that the parties have settled the matter in mediation and they have entered into a mediation settlement agreement dated 11.10.2021. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would point out that there is no modification of the final decree, in so far as the 1^st respondent-1^st decree holder-1^st plaintiff is concerned.

¶60

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides and on perusing the mediation settlement agreement dated 11.10.2021, we find that the parties have settled the entire dispute in mediation and have entered into the aforesaid mediation settlement agreement.

¶61

In such circumstances, these appeals are disposed of, in terms of the settlement recorded in the mediation settlement agreement dated 11.10.2021, which shall form part of this judgment. It is recorded that there is no modification of the final decree insofar as the 1^st respondent-1^st decree holder-

¶62

¶63

R.F.A.Nos. 134 and 139 of 2020

¶64

1^st plaintiff is concerned.

¶65

The original of mediation settlement agreement shall

¶66

be sent to the court below, after retaining attested copies of

¶67

the same in the Judges papers in both the appeals.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶72

dkr

Grace Savithri v. Adlein Pushpaveni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Grace Savithri v. Adlein Pushpaveni

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

V.Prajala Vs Pochappan Cherumanatil Umesh

Bhagya Sheelan Vs Pochappan Cherumanatil Umesh

Prasanth Vs Pochappan Cherumanatil Umesh

Mary Anitha Latha Vs Adlein Pushpaveni

Janamma Vs the Branch Manager, Uco Bank Limited

Biju Francis Vs Sankaran