A regular first appeal was disposed of based on a compromise between the parties. The High Court recorded the settlement and directed the refund of court fees paid by the appellant.
The appeal was disposed of based on the compromise arrived at by the parties; court fee paid to the appellant was directed to be refunded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN "E HIGH COURT 0F KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE II0NOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
FRIDAY, "E 4" DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 15TH MAGHA, 1943
RFA NO. 464 0F 2009
AGAINST ThE -UDCMENT AND DECREE DATED 16/®9/2ee8 IN Os 61/2®e4 OF SUB
COURT, MANJERI
APPELLANT (DEFENDANT_I :
KAITHOLI BENNI,THERUVAMPADAM, EDIVANNA P.0. , VIA. NILAMBUR, PULLIPPADAM AMSOM DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK-679 329.
BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI. K. JAYESH MOHANKUMAR
SRI. PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH
SMT. VANDANA MENON
RESPONDENT (PLAINTIFF}_i
*1 KIDANCAZHI MANAKKAL NARAYAhlAN NAMBO0DIRIPAD,
S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBO0DIRIPAD, ERAMANCALAM P.O. , CHATHANCOTTUPURAM AMSOM, ERAMANGALAM DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, CHATHANcOTTUPuRAM. (DIED)
*ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 IMPLEADED
ADDL.R2. K.M.RADHA, AGED ABOUT 6® YEARS,
W/0 MADHAVAN NAMBOODIRI,
I(ANCINIYATT MAMA, P0 KADAMPUZHA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676553
ADDL.R3 K.M.YAMUNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
W/0 KRISHNAN NAMBO0DIRIPPAD, MANGALLOT ILLAM, DEvl NACAR, ro PUNKUNNAM, "RISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680002
ADDL.R4 SREEDEVI,AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
W/0 RISHIKESH, THEKI(EDATh MAMA, ro MULANKUNNATh KAvu, THRlssuR-68®58i
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 0F THE DECEASED SOLE RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 VIDE ORDER DATED 21.1®.2020 IN IA 1/2®2®
BY ADV . SRI . P . M . POULOSE
"Is REGULAR FIRST AppEAL HAvlirG cOwE up FOR HEARlue Ou 04.®2.2®22, THE COURT 0N THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA NO. 464 0F 2®09
JUDGMENT
The parties have entered into a compromise, The connected case is also disposed of based on the compromise. The compromise arrived at by the parties win form part of the judgment and decree. Refund the entire court fee paid to the appellant. The appeal win stand disposed of in terms of compromise.
The Registry is directed to send back LCR
forthwith ,
Sd/.
P . SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
Insp
grted On: 2,I .Oi.2022.
BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ENAKULAM
R.F.A. No. 4.64 of 2009
%,,„,
Kaitholi Benny Appellant
Vs.
Kidangazhi Manakkal Narayanan
Respondent
ZiR
/'
MEMO SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
/Namboodiripad
rT/
-? ,i ,, \,<br>Fr-..<br>:,i, ,tE±i ,; -.I h, a<br>t5!frR?tilt<br>KODOTH PuslipARAJTAN (P.261) K-456/ 1987<br>COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT.<br>--:-=rt----
rl
Appellant
Vs.
Respondent
u
'\ \3fu
u
-1r-
BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ENAKULAM
R.F.A. No. 464 of 2009
Kaitholi Benny
Appellant
Vs.
Kidangazhi Manakkal Narayanan Namboodiripad
Respondent
RIB
MEMO SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLfSLNT
rl
I am the counsel appearillg for the appellant in the above Regular First Appeal. The sole respondent Kidangazhi Manakkal Narayanan Namboodiripad passed away and his legal heirs have been impleaded as additional respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4. The dispute between the appellant and the respondents have been settled. The compromise entered into between the parties is appended along with this meino. The compromise may be recorded and the appeal may be disposed of as settled out of Court. The Court fee paid on the Appeal Memorandum may be refunded to the appellant.
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2022.
rrf2 ERE
COUNSEL F`OR THE APPELLANT.
a
_2.-
BEFFOR THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNANIULAM
APPELLENT:
IANo. . of 2022
in
RFANo. 464 of 2009
-¢.,,F,..1..{'Ti# Ci
Kitholil Benny, aged 53 years, S/o Mathai Mathew Peruvampadam, Edivanna P.O, Via- Nilambur Pullipadan ansom desom, Malappuram District
Vs
. _gsKP.3:TRkNTftysisedq6¥yo£o,]e, respQpdeLflQ W/o Madhavan Namboothiri . Changalliyot Mana, P.O Kadanpucha Malappuram District, PIN: 676 553
(2) K.M.Sreedevi, aged 64 years, W/o Hrishikeshan Bhattathiripad Thekkedath Mana, Kolazhi ansom, Thirur desom P.O Mulamkurmathkavu, Trissur District, PIN: 680 581
a
(3) K.M. Yamuna, aged 59 years, W/o Krishnan Namboothiri
Mangalath illam, Devinagar P.O Punkkunnam, Trissur District, PIN:680 002
TIHcOMpoRMlsEPETITIONFILEDByTIHAppELLAr`ITANDRESPONDENTS IN TEE ABOVE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL UNDER ORDER XXX111 RULE 3 0F TIH CPC.
The dispute between the appellant and respondents who are the legal heirs
KITHOLIL BEENy agiv
K.M.RADRA ee `< K.M.SREEDEVI K.M.YAhINA
-Jr
2
oftheoriginalplaintiffinOSNo.61/2004onthefileoftheSubCourtManjeri (KidangazhiManakkalNarayananNamboothirpad)hasbeensettledbetweenthe appellantandtherespondents.Asperthetermsofthesettlement,appellanthas QgreedtopayasumofRs.2,00,000/-(RupeesTwolakhsonly)towardsthefull andfinalsettlementofthedecreeanountinOSNo.61of2004SubCourt,Manjeri. Therespondentsreceivedthesettlementamountfromtheappellanttowardsthe final settlement. The appellant and respondents agreed to produce the above compromisebeforetheHon'bleHighCourtofKeralaforthefinaldisposalof the appeal.Onrecordingtheabovecompomisetheappellantmaybegivenrefund of the entire court fee paid in the appeal Memorandum.
u
Accordingly the appellant subi-i`iits that the appeal may be disposed of as settled out of court in terms of the above compormise arrived at between the parties. The court fee paid on the Mcmorandum of appeal may be kindly be refunded to appellant.
Dated this the 14th day of January; 2022.
KITHOLIL BENNy t¢jee
K.M.RADHAtes+
u
K.M.SREEDEVI
APPELLAVT
K.M.YAhINA RESPONDENTS *
l.JR-.------..`L-
CONSEL FOR TIIE RESPONDENTS
CONSEL FOR TIH APPELLANT CONSEL FOR TIIE RESPONDENTS Kf i r»<i i7 of oiHjf of3R!b2hi k/ftyE5/fas7 i-sea c- i=.i9ej> t>quwl =C-:;:=ji=T:``±;i=?irQthi|ee.u\
i +REIt lAN . T.K. B.A.LLB t ADVOCATE Dr`` t Nn K 424 1993
Kaitholi Benny
Kidangazhi Manakkal Narayanan Namboodiripad
K.M. Radha
K.M. Sreedevi
K.M. Yamuna
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
