IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA.No. 366 of 2009()
1. MOHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.ABDULLA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUKUMARAN, S/O.KUMARAN,
... Respondent
2. VELAYUDHAN, S/O.ARUMUGHAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
For Respondent :SRI.P.R.VENKETESH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :29/03/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
R.S.A.No.366 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010.
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises from judgment and decree of learned Additional
District Judge-I, Palakkad in A.S.No.73 of 2001 reversing dismissal of the suit
(for specific performance) and granting a decree in favour of respondent No.1
directing appellant and respondent No.2 to execute the sale deed in favour of
respondent No.1 on the latter depositing Rs.2,500/- in the trial court towards
balance sale consideration. According to respondent No.1 the suit property
which belonged to respondent No.2/defendant No.1 was agreed to be assigned
to him for consideration. Appellant/defendant No.2 is a subsequent assignee
from respondent No.2 who is also bound by the decree of the first appellate court
and hence is aggrieved. Now it is submitted that appellant and respondent No.1
have settled the dispute outside the court and have filed I.A.No.838 of 2010 to
pass a decree in accordance with the compromise.
2. I have heard learned counsel for appellant and respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2/defendant No.1 has been removed from the array of parties as
per order on I.A.No.837 of 2010.
RSA No.366/2009
2
3. Terms and conditions of the settlement between appellant and
respondent No.1 are embodied in I.A.No.838 of 2010. That application is
allowed and compromise is recorded.
Resultantly Second Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise
(vide I.A.No.838 of 2010) and a decree is passed in accordance with the
compromise. Compromise shall form part of the decree of this Court.
I.A.No.828 of 2009 will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks