Allowed

Lekha Sudhir v. Hemanth Balakrishnan

Kerala HC19 Jul 2023RFA/48/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On appeal from a partition suit, the High Court recorded a compromise reached through mediation. The court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the lower court to modify the final decree in accordance with the settlement agreement and appended survey plan.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; the final decree is to be modified by the lower court in terms of the memorandum of agreement and the appended plan.

Lekha Sudhir Vs Hemanth Balakrishnan — Partition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RERAIA AT ERNAKUIAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONouRABLE in. -usTlcE ANII. K.NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOuRABI.E i4R.dusTlcE p.G. ArlTHKtnnR

¶6

wEDRESDAy, THE i9TH Day OF -ul,I 2o23 / 28TH asHADEIA, ig45

¶7

R.F.A.NO. 48 0F 2023

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2022 IN FDIA 419 0F 2017 0F THE SUB COURT, KANNUR

¶9

APPELLENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

¶10

IiEKHA SUDHIR

¶11

AGED 66 YEARS, I)/O.IATE M.P. BAILAKRISEINAN & IATE sin.vnNA-A BAI.AKRlsmiAN, w/O. c.M. SUDHIR, PERMANENTI,I REslDING AT FILaT NO. 6c, ''HEERAGRACE ' , Howl)IAR, TRIVANDRIJM, PIN -695003.

¶12

BY Ays . sErm "Cus K . REU JEN JAISON

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RETITIONERS/PIAINTIFFS:

¶14

I]EMANTII BAILAKRI SENAN

¶15

S/O. (RATE) M.P. BAILAKRISENAN & (IATE) SMT. vENA4A BzilAKRlsHNAN, pERMaNENT REslDENT OF KANNUR 11 AMSOM, ENATHUR I)ESOM, KZINNUR TAIIUK, pRESENTI]r REslDING AT No. 17/3 NEHRu imGAR imlN ROAI), SAI,IGRaenM, CHENNAI, plN -6ooog3.

¶16

BRINDA SRI . RAM

¶17

D/0. (LATE) M.p. BALAKRlsENAN & (IATE) sum. VANAOA BAlnKRlsHNAN, w/o. in. p.K. SRIRAM, pERInNENT RESIDENT OF KANNUR 11 AMsOM, KANATHUR DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FIAT NO. 302, APARNA RESIDENCY. 2-2-22/4/1, I).D. COIioNY, BACH AbGARPET, HYDERABAD, PIN -500013.

¶18

R.F.A.No.48 of 2023

¶19

BY ADVS.

¶20

ABDUL RAOOF PAI.LIPZITH

¶21

K.R.AvlNasH (KUNNATH)

¶22

E. MOHA104EI) SHAFI

¶23

Tt]IS REGUILAR FIRST APPEAI- HAVING CORE UP FOR FINAL HEARING 0N 19.07.2023, TEIE COURT 0N THE SAIG DAY DELIVERED THE F0IiLOWING :

R.F,A,No.48 of 2023

JUDGMENT

P.G.Aiithkumar, J.

Defendants in O.S.No.196 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Kannur is the appellant. He preferred this appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the final decree in the said suit passed as per the judgment dated 25.10.2022.

¶28

This appeal was admitted on 03.03.2023. As per the order in I.A.No.1 of 2023 all further proceedings pursuant impugned in this appeal to the final decree impugned in this appeal was stayed.

¶29

On 29.05.2023, this matter was referred for mediation and both parties were directed to appear before the Nodal Officer, Ernakulam Mediation Centre attached to this Court at 10.15 a.in. on 15.06.2023. In the mediation, the disputes between the parties were settled. They entered into a compromise. The memorandum of agreement entered into between the parties in terms of Rules 24 and 25 of the Civil Procedure (Alternate Dispute Resolution) Rules, 2008 was

¶30

R.F.A.No.48 of 2023

¶31

placed on record by the Nodal Officer along with a report of the Mediator.

¶32

The parties mutually had agreed to modify the allotment of the shares in terms of the preliminary decree. The final decree passed by the Sub Court, Kannur requires modification, if the compromise entered into between the parties is accepted.

¶33

Having considered the terms of compromise, we are satisfied that it is lawful. Therefore, we record the compromise. Since the final decree passed by the Sub Court, Kannur requires modification and the survey sketch which is produced along with the compromise has to be appended to the final decree, the matter has to be sent back to the said court. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in terms of the memorandum of agreement entered into between the parties. The final decree will stand modified in terms of the memorandum of agreement and the plan appended thereto. The memorandum of agreement and the sketch will form part of this judgment.

¶34

R.F,A,No.48 of 2023

¶35

The Registry shall forward a copy of this ].udgment along with a copy of the memorandum of agreement and sketch to the Sub Court, Kannur for passing a modified final decree and to draw up a final decree accordingly,

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶40

dkr

¶41

BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶42

RFA No. 48/2023

¶43

Lekha Sudhir : APpellant Vs. Hemanth Balakrishnan & : Respondents Brinda Sriram

¶44

HEM.ORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ARRIVED AT BRTWEE2PLT.HLB APPBLLANT AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 U/S 89 0F__I_H__E_qcp.9= R/W R[Z±E 24 Ge 25 0F THE CIVIL PROCEDURE `ALTERATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION RULES 2008

¶45

Both the Appellant and Respondents 1 and 2 have mutually gigrted in the mediation to approve the 2nd supplemental plan No. I whicli is marked as Exhibit C-7 in the final Judgment dated 25`10.2022 in F.D.I. A. No. 419/2017 in O.S. no. 196/2013 of Sub Court, Kannur where in the having an extent of 26.75 cents and the house situated in the plaint schedule property is allotted to the share of the appellant and the remaining 53.50 cent of vacant land is allotted to the share of Respondents 1 and 2.

¶46

The appellant has no objection in taking all the furniture in the house & garage by Respondents 1 and 2.

¶47

Both the Appellant and Respondents have agreed to give the rent amount received in the joint account, to the appellant. The respondents shall relinquish their right over the joint Bank Account and the Account shall be treated as the sole account of the appellant. The Responderits a #,Jthajtiiaifejaxpellant r. , ,J

¶48

dc2ata4issk 6\41±'S

¶49

shall take whatever amount in the Bank Account as on today (13.07.2023) and the said account shall be operated only by the appellant.

¶50

The respondents shall construct the b6undary wall as per Exhibit g:I plan in between the properties of the appellant and t.he :|.-..i,

¶51

respondents^shall bear the entire cost for the construction of lhi` boundary wall. The construction of boundary wall must be completed within a period of 60 days from 13.07.2023.

¶52

There is no owelty amount to be paid to each other (appctl]m" "rd respondents). Both the parties agreed to bear their respc.etjvc £'{)fit, F`inal decree dated 25.10.2022 may also be modified in tt:rtt}s of the mediation settlement by incorporating Exhibit C-7 plan .i,3 Part

¶53

of the decree. Copy of the Exhibit C-7 plan is also atlt`€^lied

¶54

herewith.

¶55

chian`

¶56

Appellant : Lekha sudhir Respondents B-alalfrishnan Brinda Sriram

¶57

Counel for the Appellant Counsel for espondents =~-di Thk¢#Gcti€7 pr"6i

¶58

K 1\a state 9tgdi80oMfid conchabon cent!9 H\gt,Courto{,t/`eTa\a Koch.t-69j2031

¶59

its .ty

¶60

:£ :-:;3= i I-..---..-I;:'.:T: ..... ,:::a--.: :- -.

¶61

:---:.::`----i --

¶62

c,Ee''E<REm<HEHco, y^ ~ ng*jfahfu^cortyS .yL #¥tyap chvyife-y^ ,t ~yy ' iiB-,in + =€= . * a-. >~ =*, ' b ; \ .-...} ridrer;fuprrp' \. x} ty -A a . • .= #\1 S! e, I!HEREE

¶63

¶64

£7

¶65

. ...i : I .= ;`: = _ ,,,- rid..:--; ,-I ~ 9:f r8i8 €gsett =€ L,?\£.S' .,as # ssbee fit ff®iRE •;,r <';**J..P-:-.fr -* Sha i-.,*-j sS``.ul s :;Sn rbev,r**i!st fy ~ aspeds •#; co -:-.--:.,t.-...-:--``.+.. --=--i'.-.:::.----3.-s#ir;a:;:;A.:` `=: :S`*bx`isds§€ S''.#§ :=ZFSf ro f if.±jfp9n;an S?ei: -.f €cetiv}e©; givpe .rm +Sf i r:~:i ¢3dr€Bjus' /i? " t„ 'J. ~5if.REife detyisfr i tpani;ifb F¢r.i r*_ -4{S ,i nrRp3 vf.;``+y:.:; =J' ':Sf S a is+* >§ r!rantri+sf ir¢i Fan, gif erf{T#REy:±:alS =,:*Ssex S -i '.. - \--,..-.,'-tn. :-. -gri xh. gr=;prt';€al 3`:'' _gprf.jB:f a -, 2 -P_I i

¶66

m'..: :::*::..#::SSPSap±-S.i-£:i:::a?:};SfS{fr£. I-;#: 1.,,I,,,-, 2 -P_I i

¶67

-...-. x ,..: , ==:,¥se-€8*,.rt .` _i cid

Lekha Sudhir v. Hemanth Balakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lekha Sudhir v. Hemanth Balakrishnan

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

Ashok Harry Pothen Vs Premlal

Thaikandy Dhanesh Vs Saju. P. John

Suo Motu Vs Travancore Devaswom Board - Tdb

Cochin Devaswom Board, Vs State of Kerala

Thirumullappulli Devaswam Vs the State of Kerala

Dennis Joseph Vs Claramma Devassia