Disposed

Shobha Prakash v. O N Satheeshan

Kerala HC6 Jan 2023RFA/448/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appealing against a partition decree, parties settled disputes through the Ernakulam Mediation Centre. The High Court allowed disposal of both appeals based on the terms of the sealed memorandum of agreement dated 17.12.2022.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals (RFA No.448 of 2016 and RFA No.603 of 2016) were disposed of in terms of the memorandum of agreement dated 17.12.2022 reached through mediation.

Shobha Prakash Vs O N Satheeshan — Partition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶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

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 16TH POUSHA, 1944

¶7

RFA NO. 448 OF 2016

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.04.2016 MADE IN

¶9

O.S.NO.231 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, KANNUR.

¶10

APPELLANTS:

¶11

1 SHOBHA PRAKASH, AGED 57 YEARS, D/O. LATE PADMANABHAN, OFFICER IN INSURANCE COMPANY, RESIDING AT AKSHAYA, PALLIKKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, P.O.PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 004.

¶12

2 SUBHASH P., AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. LATE PADMANABHAN, COMPANY EMPLOYEE, RESIDING AT RAM VILAS, MULLANKANDY HOUSE, PALLIKKUNNU AMSOM DESOM,

¶13

P.O.PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 004.

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

SRI.K.P.HAREENDRAN
SRI.U.P.BALAKRISHNAN

¶16

RESPONDENTS:

¶17

1 O N SATHEESHAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. KORAN, BUILDER, RESIDING AT SATSUNG, TALAP, KANNUR-II AMSOM DESOM, P.O.PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR-670 004.

¶18

2 SURESH PADMANABHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. LATE N.P.PADMANABHAN, CATERING WORK, RESIDING AT RAM VILAS, MULLANKANDY HOUSE, PALLIKKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, P.O.PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 004.

¶19

BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA

¶20

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶21

06.01.2023, ALONG WITH RFA.603/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

RFA Nos.448 and 603 of 2016

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶24

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶25

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 16TH POUSHA, 1944

¶26

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.04.2016 MADE IN

¶27

O.S.NO.409 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, KANNUR.

¶28

APPELLANTS:

¶29

1 M.P.SANGEETHA, AGED 44 YEARS "SATSUNG", TALAP, KANNUR-II AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶30

2 O.N. SATHEESAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KORAN, "SATSUNG", TALAP, KANNUR-II AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶31

BY ADVS.
SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
SRI.JOHN THITHEEMOS
SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA

¶32

RESPONDENTS:

¶33

1 SUBHASH P., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.LATE M.P.PADMANABHAN, EMPLOYED IN PRIVATE COMPANY, "AKSHAYA", PALLIKKUNNU AMSOM, DESOM, P.O. PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR-4.

¶34

2 SHOBHA PRAKASH AGED 55 YEARS D/O.LATE M.P.PADMANABHAN, WORKING IN INSURANCE COMPANY, "AKSHAYA", PALLIKKUNNU AMSOM, DESOM, P.O. PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR-4.

¶35

3 SURESH PADMANABHAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.LATE PADMANABHAN, PALLIKKUNNU AMSOM, DESOM, P.O. PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR-4.

¶36

BY ADV SRI.K.P.HAREENDRAN

¶37

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.01.2023, ALONG WITH RFA.448/2016, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

RFA Nos.448 and 603 of 2016

¶39

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶42

Since common issues are raised, these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶43

2. R.F.A.No.448 of 2016 :- The appellants are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.231 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Kannur, which was one filed by the 1^st respondent hereinplaintiff, seeking a decree of specific performance and consequential injunction restraining alienation of the plaint schedule property. That suit was decreed along with O.S.No.409 of 2012. By the judgment dated 11.04.2016, the Sub Court, Kannur, decreed both the suits. The operative portion of that judgment reads thus;

¶44

“In the result, O.S.No.409 of 2012 and O.S.No.231 of 2012 are decreed.

¶45

1. Plaint schedule property in O.S.No.231 of 2012 (A schedule property in O.S.No.409 of 2012) shall be divided into 3 equal shares by metes and bounds. Plaintiff’s wife Sangeetha (the 1^st defendant in O.S.No.409 of 2012) is entitled to get 1/3 share of the plaint schedule property.

¶46

2. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.231 of 2012 are entitled to get 1/3 share each in the plaint schedule property.

¶47

3. Claim for partition of B Schedule movables is disallowed.

¶48

4. Interested parties may apply for passing of final decree by appointment of commissioner to effect partition of A schedule property by metes and bounds. O.S.No.409 of 2012 is

¶49

RFA Nos.448 and 603 of 2016

¶50

¶51

adjourned sine die.

¶52

5. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.231 of 2012 are directed to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the balance sale consideration for Rs.23,35,000/- within one month and transfer their 2/3 right in the plaint A schedule property in favour of the plaintiff.

¶53

6. On the failure of defendants 1 and 2 to execute the sale deed, plaintiff shall deposit balance sale consideration in court within 2 months and to get the sale deed executed through court.

¶54

7. The plaintiff is entitled to realise the costs in O.S.No.231 of 2012 from defendants 1 and 2.

¶55

8. The 2^nd defendant, Subhash (the plaintiff in O.S.No.409 of 2012) is entitled to realise the costs of O.S.no.409 of 2012 from defendants 1 and 4 in O.S.no.409 of 2012 (plaintiff in O.S.No.231 of 2012 and his wife).”

¶56

Challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2016 of the Sub Court, Kannur in O.S.No.231 of 2012, the appellants are

¶57

before this Court in this appeal.

¶58

2.1. 01.08.2016, when this appeal came up for admission,

¶59

this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondents by speed post. In I.A.No.1781 of 2016, this Court granted an interim order staying the execution of O.S.No.231 of 2012, for a period of two months, which was extended for a period of three months on 30.09.2016.

¶60

3. R.F.A.No.603 of 2016 :- The appellants are

¶61

defendants 1 and 4 in O.S.No.409 of 2012 on the file of the Sub

¶62

RFA Nos.448 and 603 of 2016

¶63

¶64

Court, Kannur, which was one filed by the 1^st respondent hereinplaintiff, seeking a decree for partition. That suit was tried along with O.S.No.231 of 2012. By the judgment dated 11.04.2016, the Sub Court, Kannur decreed both the suits. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2016 of the Sub Court in O.S.No.409 of 2012, the appellants are before this Court in this appeal.

¶65

3.1. On 27.09.2016, when this appeal came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondents by speed post. In I.A.No.2299 of 2016, this Court granted an interim order staying the operation of judgment and decree in O.S.No.409 of 2012.

¶66

4. During the pendency of these appeals, the parties were referred for mediation before Ernakulam Mediation Centre, in the premises of this Court, on 05.11.2022. Now, the parties have settled the disputes in mediation and entered into a memorandum of agreement dated 17.12.2022, which is placed on record along with the report dated 21.12.2022 of the Mediator.

¶67

5. Today, when these appeals taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would submit that, since the parties have settled the disputes in mediation, these appeals can be

¶68

RFA Nos.448 and 603 of 2016

¶69

¶70

disposed of in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the

¶71

memorandum of agreement dated 17.12.2022.

¶72

Recording the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, these appeals are disposed of in terms of

¶73

the terms and conditions contained in the memorandum of agreement dated 17.12.2022, which shall form part of this judgment.

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

ANIL K. NARENDRAN

¶76

JUDGE Sd/-

¶77

P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE

¶78

¶79

RFA Nos.448 and 603 of 2016

¶80

¶81

RFA Nos.448 and 603 of 2016

¶82

¶83

RFA Nos.448 and 603 of 2016

¶84

¶85

RFA Nos.448 and 603 of 2016

¶86

Shobha Prakash v. O N Satheeshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobha Prakash v. O N Satheeshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aldrin T.F. Vs K.K.Joseph

Manoj A.K Vs Lini M.

Manoj a.K., Vs Lini M.

M.P.Sangeetha Vs Subhash P.

R.Jayarajan, Vs State of Kerala

Ragesh Menon Vs Salini Sreedhar