Disposed

Pareethubhava Abdul Rahim v. Madhavan Nair

Kerala HC25 Jan 2023OP(C)/1655/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This original petition assailing an order admitting compromise in an appeal was disposed of. The High Court directed the First Appellate Court to re-examine the validity of the compromise and deed, allowing parties to lead evidence within eight months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the First Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal after affording necessary opportunity to both sides to lead evidence regarding the compromise and Release Deed within eight months.

Pareethubhava Abdul Rahim Vs Madhavan Nair — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 5TH MAGHA, 1944

¶5

OP(C) NO. 1655 OF 2012

¶6

(AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER IN I.A.470 OF 2011, 514 OF 2011, 570 OF
2011, 580 OF 2011 AND 515 OF 2011 IN A.S.3 OF 2005 DATED 16.1.2012
OF THE SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD)

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1PAREETHUBHAVA ABDUL RAHIM,
S/O.PAREETHU BAVA, ROSHNA MANZIL,
KOTTOOR, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE,
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHAJUDEEN,
S/O.ABOOBACKER, RASHIDA MANZIL, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE,
NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2 RAMLA BEEVI, D/O.PATHUMMAL BEEVI, ROSHNA MANZIL, KOTTOOR P.O., MANNOORKARA VILLAGE-695574.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.R.S.KALKURA
SRI.HARISH GOPINATH
SRI.M.S.KALESH
SMT.A.V.PRIYA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 MADHAVAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARA PILLAI, VILLUCHERI, THADATHARIKATHU KADAYARA VEEDU, KOTTOOR, MANNOORKARA MURI, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, KUTTICHAL P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695574.

¶13

2 VIJAYAKUMARI, D/O.VASUMATHI AMMA, THALVEETTIL, NANETTAMMODU, NEMOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695020.

¶14

3 MADHAVAN PILAI, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, *DELETED THADATHARIKATHU KADAYAN VEEDU, MANNOORKARA MURI, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, KUTTICHAL P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695574.

¶15

4 ABDUL RAHEEM, S/O.PAREETHU BAVA, *DELETED RASNA MANZIL, KOTTOOR, MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, KUTTICHAL P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695574.

¶16

OP(C) NO. 1655 OF 2012

¶17

-2-

¶18

5 LEELA, D/O.RAJAMMA, MOOLAKKARA VALIYA VILA VEETTIL, KOTTAKKAL, KUTTICHAL VILLAGE, KUTTICHAL P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695574.

¶19

6 DAS, S/O.SAMUEL, MOOLAKKARA VALIYA VILA VEETTIL, KOTTAKKAL, KUTTICHAL VILLAGE, KUTTICHAL P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695574.

¶20

*R3 AND R4 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS
PER ORDER DTD.31/07/2012 IN IA 10335/2012.

¶21

BY ADVS.SRI.MANU V.
SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
SRI.G.P.SHINOD

¶22

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶23

OP(C) NO. 1655 OF 2012

¶24

-3-

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioners are the appellants in

¶27

A.S.No.3/2005 on the files of Sub Court, Nedumangad,

¶28

and they assail Ext.P12 order issued in various IAs.

¶29

2.The controversy projected in this case is
in a very narrow compass and the facts are also not
greatly disputed.

¶30

3.Sri.R.S.Kalkura – learned counsel for the
petitioners, pointed out that the plaintiff - who is
the 1st respondent herein (hereinafter to be referred
to as the 'plaintiff' for ease), filed a suit for
release of “otty” in respect of the plaint schedule
property, which was decreed on 30.11.2004. He
submitted that the appeal was, thereafter, filed by
the petitioners herein, who asserted that there was
a compromise entered into by them and the plaintiff;
subsequent to which, a Release Deed was also

¶31

executed by the latter.

¶32

4.Sri.R.S.Kalkura explained that, thereupon,
his clients filed I.A.No.470/2011 in the Appeal,

¶33

OP(C) NO. 1655 OF 2012

¶34

-4-

¶35

seeking that a Compromise Decree be issued; but

¶36

which was opposed by the alleged Power of Attorney
holder of the plaintiff, who filed I.A.No.580/2011

¶37

and I.A.No.515/2011, seeking that the Compromise
Decree and the Release Deed be set aside and that he
be allowed to prosecute the Appeal. Thelearned
counsel alleges that the First Appellate Court
unfortunately misdirected itself and allowed all the
IAs, which has now constrained his client to
approach this Court, through this Original Petition.

¶38

5.Sri.Govind Padmanaabhan – learned counsel

¶39

appearing for the respondents, submitted that it was
unnecessary for the petitioners to have approached
this Court through this Original Petition, because
the Appellate Court has only found that it is not
possible to act upon the compromise immediately,
since there were various vitiating factors alleged
against it; and therefore, that it is the matter of
evidence. He added that, unless the compromise is
proved to be vitiated and the Release Deed to be
fraudulent, the petitioners cannot obtain any cause

¶40

OP(C) NO. 1655 OF 2012

¶41

of action, as has been impelled by them in this
Original Petition.

¶42

clear that all which this Court has to now consider
is whether the First Appellate Court was in error in
holding – if it has so done – that the compromise is
unacceptable; and the Power of Attorney of the
plaintiff can, therefore, prosecute the Appeal.

¶43

affirmative finding by the First Appellate Court
that the compromise is vitiated, or that the Release
Deed is not capable of being acted upon. In fact,
the Court has entered into a correct finding that
“this is a matter of evidence in the case and the
counter petitioners/appellants are free to challenge
the same also in the appeal suit.” (sic)

¶44

8.I, therefore, fail to understand why the

¶45

petitioners should have approached this Court and
assailed Ext.P12 order, through this Original
Petition, particularly when their rights with
respect to the compromise petition are still not

¶46

OP(C) NO. 1655 OF 2012

¶47

-6-

¶48

decided fully; and when it will be upto the

¶49

Appellate Court to verify the validity of the same
in a manner known to law.

¶50

9.In fact, both sides acceded to this and

¶51

prayed that they be given sufficient opportunities
before the Appellate Court to pursue and impel their
respective contentions, for and against the

¶52

compromise.

¶53

In the afore circumstances, I dispose of this
Original Petition, directing the First Appellate
Court to dispose of A.S.No.3/2005, after affording
necessary opportunity to both sides - including to
lead evidence with respect to the compromise and the
Release Deed in question - which shall be done
within the conspectus of the provisions of law as
available under the Civil Procedure Code; thus
culminating in an appropriate judgment, as
expeditiously as is possible, but not later than
eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.

¶54

In order to obtain an expeditious compliance of

¶55

OP(C) NO. 1655 OF 2012

¶56

-7-

¶57

the afore directions, I direct the parties to appear
before the First Appellate Court at 11 a.m. on

¶58

20.02.2023.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶61

akv

¶62

OP(C) NO. 1655 OF 2012

¶63

-8-

¶64

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1655/2012

¶65

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶66

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` `30.11.2004 IN O.S. 311 OF 1998 OF THE` `PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEDUMANGAD.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL` `IN A.S.3 OF 2005 ON THE FILE OF THE` `SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, NEDUMANGAD.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED DATED` `11.04.2011 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE` `ARYANAD.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`THE TRUE COPY OF PETITION TO ACCEPT` `COMPROMISE FILED AS I.A.470 OF 2011` `BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT,` `NEDUMANGAD.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF I.A. 514 OF 2011 IN A.S.3` `OF 2005 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S` `COURT, NEDUMANGAD.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO I.A. 514` `OF 2011 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S` `COURT, NEDUMANGAD.`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF I.A 515 OF 2011 IN A.S.3` `OF 2005 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S` `COURT, NEDUMANGAD.`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO I.A.515` `OF 2011 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S` `COURT, NEDUMANGAD.`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.580 OF 2011 IN` `A.S.3 OF 2005 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE` `JUDGE'S COURT, NEDUMANGAD.`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COPY OF I.A.469 OF 2011 IN A.S.3`

¶67

OP(C) NO. 1655 OF 2012

¶68

-9-

¶69

OF 2005 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S
COURT, NEDUMANGAD.
EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION TO I.A.469 OF
2011 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S
COURT, NEDUMANGAD.
EXHIBIT P12TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN
I.A.470 OF 2011, 514 OF 2011, 570 OF
2011, 580 OF 2011 AND 515 OF 2011 IN
A.S.3 OF 2005 DATED 16.01.2012 OF THE
SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD.

Pareethubhava Abdul Rahim v. Madhavan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pareethubhava Abdul Rahim v. Madhavan Nair

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

Narayanan P Vs Harita v. Kumar

Dr.K.Mohanakumar Vs K.Jeevan Babu I.A.S.

Fathima Beevi Vs Shyla

U.Viswanathan Vs Biju Prabhakar

District Insurance Officer Vs Joy Wilson

Prasad K.K. Vs Geetha Krishnan(Deleted)