Raman v. Paru
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal against a partition decree was settled out of court. Parties executed a joint compromise petition detailing specific property allotments via a schedule. The court accepted the settlement and disposed of the appeal accordingly, refunding court fees citing apex court precedent.
What did the court decide?
Appeal disposed of on the compromise. Compromise to form part of judgment and decree. Entire court fee refunded.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT 0F KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
TUESDAY, THE llTH DAY 0F JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943
As NO. 269 OF zro03
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED ®5.1®.20®2 IN OS 89/1996 0F
SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM
APPELLANT/DEFENDANT NO.1 :
RAMAN
S/O. LATE CHUZHALIYIL VELU,
THRIKKIDEERI AMSOM,
KUTTIKODE DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC proposing a delicate property division between family members is sustainable in law given the diverse shares claimed.
Whether the agreed settlement regarding specific allotment of land properties and retention of certain documents should be recorded and decreed.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Raman
- respondent
Paru
- respondent
Padmavathy
- respondent
Sarojini
- respondent
Manikandan
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court