Disposed

Janaki Amma, (Died Lhrs Recorded) v. Muhammed

Kerala HC19 Mar 2024SA/324/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal over prohibitory injunction regarding disputed land was disposed of by consent: appellants and respondent settled amicably, dividing property in Sy No.106/03 (Block 148, Pandikkad Village) into Schedule A (45.50 cents to appellants) and Schedule B (42 cents to respondent) per a Village Officer plan dated 04.10.2023. Court recorded compromise and made the memorandum and plan part of the judgment.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of in terms of compromise; property divided per plan dated 04.10.2023 forming part of judgment and decree.

Janaki Amma, (Died Lhrs Recorded) Vs Muhammed — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT 0F KERAILA AT ERNAKUI+AM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONouRABIH in.-usTlcH= K. BABu

¶4

TUESDAY, TEE igTH DAY oF mRCH 2o24 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

SA NO. 324 0F 2003

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGB4ENT & DECREE DATED 31.01.2003 IN AS NO.6 0F 1996 OF SUBORDINATE cOuRT, amNOERI ARlslNG OuT OF THE ]uDGMENT & DECREE DATED 2o.1o.1995 IN os No.265 oF 1987 oF M[rNslFT couRT, imNOERI

¶7

APPELliENTS/PI.AINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS:

¶8

emiAKI Amm, (DIED I.HRs REcoRDED) AGED 62 YEARS

¶9

D/O. cHANDRAyll, CHAKKUNGAL I.AKSHMI Amm. (AppELIENT Nos 2 TO 4 ARE RECORDED AS THE IIEGAL HEIRS 0F DECEASED IST APPELENT AS PER 0REER DATED 14.08.2020 IN IA.1/2020.) DAUGHTER sATH¥ABHAim ,

AGEI) 37 YEARS.

JAYATHI-,

AGED 29 ¥E]ms,

s/o. TENzltl Arm.

PRAI)EEPLEL ,

AGED 29 ¥EARs, s/o.TANAKI Arm. (AI,L ARE REslDING AT PANDIKKAD AMSOM P00KKOOTH DESOM, ERNAD TALUK. )

¶16

BY ADV

¶17

SRI . K . M . SATHIANATHA IENON

¶18

S/O.OSSAN MOIDEEN, PANDIKKAD AMSOM, RESPONI)ENI/DEFENDJNI/APPEI.IiANT:-,

¶19

S/O.OSSAN MOIDEEN, PANDIKKAD AMSOM,

¶20

POOICKOOTH DESOM, ERllAD IALtJK.

¶21

BY JDV

¶22

Sim . R . Rzni.ANIE

¶23

TH I S SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINAI-LY HEARD 0N 19.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SARE. DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :

S.A No.324/2003

K.BABU'. J.

S.A No.324 of 2003

Dated this the 19th day of March, 2024

¶29

This Second Appeal emanates from the judgment dated

¶30

31.01.2003 in A.S.No.6/1996 passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Manjeri.

¶31

During the pendency of this appeal, the parties entered into a compromise and a compromise petition (I.A.No.1/2024) was also filed before this Court. It is stated therein that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled. The terms arrived at between the parties are lawful.

¶32

The Second Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise. The memorandum containing the terms of compromise and the plan

¶33

attached to it will form part of this judgment. ,

Sd/-

K.BABU, JUDGE

KAS

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF I(ERALA AT ERNAKULAM

I.A.No. I of 2024

S.A.No. 324 of 2003

APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS:

¶42

Sathyabhama, W/o Gopalakrishnan, aged 63 years, Naveena House, Tharippadi Road, Valluvangad South, Post Vettikattiri, Malappuram Pin:676521, Now residing at Saila].a Mandiram, PO. Makkaraparamba, Malappuram Pin 676507

¶43

Jayathilakan C., S/O Govindan Nair(Late), aged 58 years, Naveena House, Tharippadi Road, Valluvangad South, Post Vettikattiri, Malappuram Pin:676521, Now residing at

¶44

Naveena House, P.O.Valluvangad South, Malappuram Pin.676521

¶45

Pradeeplal , S/O Govindan Nair(Late), aged 55 years, Naveena House, Tharippadi Road, Valluvangad South, Post Vettikattiri, Malappuram Pin:676521, Now residing at Chendrayil House, Cheeratamanna, P.O. Valamboor Malappuram Pin 679325

¶46

Vs.

¶47

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶48

Mohammed, S/o Moideen, aged 77 years, Kaniyarakunnan House, Poolamanna, Pandikkad, Malappuram, Pin 679327

¶49

23ffl L-l 2ndAppe||ant : Sathyabhama 3rd Appe||ant : Jayathilakan. c% Respondent : Mohammed 4thAppellant : Pradeeplal ErEEi Counsel e Applicants /Appellants Counsel

¶50

R. RANJANIE. B.A,, LL.M. AOVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA `rtyodirtyal Jews Street, Ernakulam Ph : 98470 64623

¶51

JOINT COMPR.OMISE APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND TIIE RESpol\IDENT, UI\IDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 Al\lD SECTIOI\1 151 0F THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

¶52

The lst appellant in the case Janaki Amma died on 16.10.2015 and her children are the applicants herein, who are appellants No.2 to 4 in the above appeal. The above appeal is filed challenging the Judgment in A.S.No.6/1996 dated 31.01.2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Manjeri wherein the Judgment in O.S No.265/1987 dated 20.10.1995 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Man].eri was reversed and set aside.

¶53

The deceased lst appellant along with applicants had preferred suit as O.S.No.265/1985 before the Munsiff Court, Manjeri with a prayer of prohibitory injunction against the respondent with respect to plaint schedule property. After the trial, the learned Munsiff Court, Manjeri decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs directing the defendant and his men are restrained from trespassing in to the plaint schedule property or causing any manner of obstruction to the plaintiff for the convenient en].oyment over the same.

¶54

2ndAppe||ant : Sathyabhama

¶55

C±

¶56

3rd Appe||ant : Jayathilakan =i-------

¶57

Respondent : Mohammed

¶58

4th Appellant : Pradeeplal

¶59

--i-=-=------i--:-

¶60

e Applicants /Appellants

¶61

Counsel for the Respondent

¶62

R. RANJANIE. B.A., LL.M. ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 'Ayodhya' Jews Street, Ernakulam Ph : 98470 64623

¶63

Challenging thejudgment and decree in os. No.265/1987 dated 02.10.1995 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Manjeri, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Man].eri as A.S. No.6/1996. After hearing the matter, the learned Subordinate Judge by judgment dated 31.01.2003 allowed the appeal and the I.udgment in OS No.265/1987 on the file of the Munsiff Court was set aside and suit was dismissed.

¶64

Challenging the I.udgment and decree in A.S. No. 6/1996 the applicants/appellantsalong with deceased lst appellant had preferred S.A. No.324/2003 before this Hon'ble Court and the same is pending consideration. During the pendency of the appeal, 1St appellant died on 16.10.2015 and the appellants 2 to 4 were recorded as legal heirs of the lst appellant as per the order in IA No.1/2020.

¶65

Considering the long pendency of the case, some elder members in the family and locality had a mediation talk with appellants and ,the respondent and reached into an amicable settlement especially on the reason that both are neighbours.

¶66

2ndAppe||ant : Sathyabhama

¶67

czgiv

¶68

3rd Appe||ant : Jayathilakan

¶69

Respondent : Mohammed

¶70

:\ 4thAppellant : Pradeeplal

¶71

Counsel for the Respondent

¶72

R. RANJANIE. B.A., LL.M. ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 'Ayodhya, Jews Street, Ernakulam Ph : 98470 64623

¶73

Accordingly, it was decided to measure the entire property through Village Officer, Pandikkad and prepare a plan about the entire properties in the present survey number 106/03 in block number 148. On a measurement of the total extent of property under dispute between the applicants/appellants and respondent by the Village Officer, Pandikkad it was found that the total extent of the land comes to an extent of 87.50 cents. Thereafter, the property was divided into two portions as schedule A and 8 and a plan dated 4.10.2023 was prepared by Village Officer, by which the property shown Schedule A having an extent of 45.50 cents in survey number 106/03 in block number 148 in Pandikkad Village Eranad Taluk is exclusively allotted to the applicants/appellants and property shown as Schedule 8 having an extent of 42 cents in survey number 106/03 in block number 148 in Pandikkad Village Eranad Taluk was allotted to the defendant. The plan prepared by the Village Officer, Pandikkad dated 04.10.2023 may be`treated

¶74

::d pAaprtp:,i at::s co in : :ot:;:: haap:I:ca& car

¶75

3rd Appellant :Jayathilakanc# Respondent: Mohammed 4th Appellant : Pradeeplal he Applicants /Appellants

¶76

•E

¶77

Counsel for the Respondent

¶78

R. RANJANIE. B.A„ LL.M. ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 'Ayodhya' Jews Street, Ernakulam Ph : 98470 64623

¶79

It is submitted that both parties has fully agreed to the plan appended to this application prepared by the Village Officer, Pandikkad dated 04.10.2023 and the property shown as having an extent of 45.50 cents in survey number 106/03 in block number 148 in Pandikkad Village Eranad Taluk is exclusively allotted, owned and possessed by the applicants/appellants as its exclusive title holders and similarly the plot having an extent of 42.00 cents in survey number 106/03 in block number 148 in Pandikkad Village Eranad Taluk is exclusively allotted, owned and possessed by the respondent as its exclusive title holders. In view of the above fact it is decided to dispose of the appeal recording the compromise and the plan appended to this compromise application which may be made part of the Judgment and decree.

¶80

Both parties agree and undertake that there will not be any further dispute over the properties covered under the plan in Sy No. 106/03 in block No.148 in Pandikkad Village in Ernad Taluk. Both parties agree that they have not entered to the above compromise under any threat or coercion. The above compromise is arrived out of free will and consent.

¶81

2ndAppe||ant : Sathyabhama

¶82

3rd Appe||ant : Jayathilakanc

¶83

Respondent : Mohammed

¶84

4th Appellant : Pradeeplal

¶85

Counsel pplicants /Appellants

¶86

R. RANJANIE. B.A., LL.M. ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT 0F KERALA 'Ayodhya' Jews Street, Ernakulam Ph .. 98470 64623

¶87

In terms of the above compromise, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record the said compromise and dispose of the appeal recording the above terms of the compromise together with the plan appended to this compromise application without costs.

¶88

Dated this the 20th day of January, 2024

¶89

2nd Appe||ant Sathyabhama z2¢gzr

¶90

3rd Appeiiant Jayathilakan c se

¶91

4thAppeiiant Pradeeplal fpr

¶92

solemnly affirmed and signLeLd before me by the deponen€ Iknown to e on this the 20^{th day of January, 2o24-:t--in-}:t>ffi.€=ft rM-:;i;'ri} quoFpersona,,y

¶93

Counsel fo Applicants /Appellants

¶94

C. SF3EEDHARAN NAIR

¶95

Respondent: Mohammed

¶96

ADVOCATE R®cal K7i 60,J69 "NEETHl", P,^ MANJERI -676121 Ph :(Off)046L ` \37438, (Res)„66516 Mob : 9847015696

¶97

:::ewmnn[::ffejromnetdhjasntdhes'2:tehddbaeyf°orfe]aTneuab#h2eo£:Pa°#o#c='7:tapMena#kem

¶98

c#r,#,A

¶99

counseifortheResp2aeondents

¶100

R. RANJAN`E. a.A., LL.M. ADVOCATE,HIGHCOURTOFKERAIA

¶101

Je¥h:`#;:EYE:;a6k2u!am

¶102

c. SREPE#ARAN NA`lR

¶103

ADVOCATE ^ Roll No. k/160,'69 ."NEETHI", P.r` MANJERl -676121 ph:toffjoifej.9;647;03]8568:st„665i6

¶104

E-'rnail : [email protected]

¶105

¶106

¶107

sJftrfufldiifecft :--:::i::-I--=_ r-

¶108

Mndcanfual

Janaki Amma, (Died Lhrs Recorded) v. Muhammed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janaki Amma, (Died Lhrs Recorded) v. Muhammed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saneesh Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumar Vs the State of Kerala

N. Sasikumaran Thampi Vs Karan.N.Mate

Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Pramod.C Vs State of Kerala