Allowed

Thonakkara George, v. Michael Antony

Kerala HC25 Aug 2022RSA/647/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In RSA 647 of 2019, the Kerala High Court observed that the matter in A.S. 54 of 2013 and O.S. 136 of 2007 was settled out of court via a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. The Court recorded the compromise and set aside the lower court decrees.

What did the court decide?

Compromise recorded under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC; prior judgments and decrees in O.S. 136/2007 and A.S. 54/2013 set aside.

Thonakkara George, Vs Michael Antony — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944

¶5

RSA NO. 647 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE JUDGMENT DATED 12/6/2018 IN A.S

¶7

NO.54 OF 2013 OF THE PRL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.3.2013 IN O.S NO.136 OF

¶9

2007 OF THE MUSIFF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA

¶10

APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 1-5:

¶11

1 THONAKKARA GEORGE, AGED 66 YEARS S/O. PAILY, RESIDING AT THONAKKARA HOUSE, ARALAM AMSOM, DESOM, PAYAM P.O, EDOOR, THALASSERY TALUK. 2 ROBIN VATTIKKATTU, AGED 43 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, RESIDING AT THONAKKARA HOUSE, ARALAM AMSOM, DESOM, PAYAM P.O, EDOOR, THALASSERY TALUK. 3 GEORGE MAPLANTHOTTAM, AGED 48 YEARS MAPLANTHOTTAM HOUSE, ARALAM AMSOM, DESOM, PAYAM P.O, EDOOR, THALASSERY TALUK. 4 MATHACHAN @ VATTAMATTAM MATHEW. AGED 56 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH, ARALAM AMSOM, DESOM, PAYAM P.O, EDOOR, THALASSERY TALUK. 5 MATHACHAN @ MATHEW KUTILIL, AGED 68 YEARS S/O. SCARIA, KUTILIL HOUSE, ARALAM AMSOM, DESOM, PAYAM P.O, EDOOR , THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADVS. MANU.M.THOMAS SRI.P.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.P.SREESHA

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 6 TO 9:

¶13

1 MICHAEL ANTONY, AGED 50 YEARS S/O. ANTONY, WORKING IN KUWAIT, RESIDING AT PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARALAM AMSOM, DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, REP. BY P.A. HOLDER P.M. JOSEPH, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 70 YEARS, PALLITHADATHIL HOUSE, PAYAM AMSAM DESOM, KANNUR

¶14

RSA No.647 of 2019

¶15

¶16

2 SECRETARY, IRITTY BLCOK PANCHAYATH, IRITTY KANNUR-670 703

¶17

3 PRESIDENT, IRITTY BLOCK PANCHAYATH, IRITTY , KANNUR-670 703

¶18

4 ARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O. PAYAM, KANNUR 670 704.

¶19

5 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR-670 001 BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN - R1 BY POA SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL -R1 BY POA SRI.JITHIN S SUNDARAN -R1 BY POA SRI.CIBI THOMAS - R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER -R5

¶20

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶21

25.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

RSA No.647 of 2019

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25^th day of August, 2022

¶26

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.54/2013 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Thalassery, which arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No.136/2007 on the file of Munsiff Court, Kuthuparamba.

¶27

When the case came up for hearing, it is submitted

¶28

by the learned counsel for both parties that the matter has been settled out of court. I.A. No.1/2022 compromise petition

¶29

has been filed under Order 23 Rule 3 stipulating the various terms of compromise.

¶30

On going through the terms of compromise, I am satisfied that all the issues between the parties have been amicably settled out of court. Accordingly, the compromise is recorded. In the light of the same judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff Court, Kuthuparamba in O.S. No.136/2007 and the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Sub Court, Thalassery in A.S. No.54/2013 is hereby set aside.

¶31

RSA is disposed of in terms with the compromise petition.

¶32

RSA No.647 of 2019

¶33

¶34

Defendants 6 to 9 being formal parties have not signed the compromise petition. I.A. No.1/2022 will form part of the decree.

¶35

All pending I.As. are closed.

¶36

Sd/M.R.ANITHA

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

SMF

Thonakkara George, v. Michael Antony

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thonakkara George, v. Michael Antony

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

Mathai Vs Minimol Mathew

Elsy Vs Saritha Shaji

Siby Thomas Vs St. John Baptist Church

Sasikala (Died) Vs Remesan

Pushpam Vs Vilasini

Baby Vs Simi