IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RFA.No. 413 of 2009()
1. KODALIL HAMZAKUTTY HAJI,S/O.HYDRU,
... Petitioner
2. HYDRU,S/O.HAMZAKKUTTY HAJI,
Vs
1. THADATHIL AHAMMED @ KASMI,
... Respondent
2. THADATHIL KUNJIPATHUMMA.
3. IYYACHAKUTTY UMMA,
4. IBRAYIM,
5. AYISHA BEEVI UMMA,
6. ISMAYIL,
7. ISSAQU,
8. PATHUMMAKUTTY UMMA,
9. AASSAN,
10. NABEESA UMMA,
11. VIRALIKUTTY,
12. AHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI,
13. MUHAMMED,
14. VELAYI,
15. VEERANKUTTY KURIKKAL,
16. SAIDHALI,
17. MUHAMMEDKUTTY,
18. HASSAN,
19. VEERANKUTTY,
20. MARIYUMMA,
21. BEEVI UMMA,
22. VEERANKUTTY,
23. AALIKUTTY,
24. ABUBACKER,
25. MARIYAKUTTY UMMA,
26. KUNHIPATHUMMA,
27. KANHEEMA UMMA,
28. KODALIL HAMSAKUTTY HAJI,
29. KADHYAMU UMMA,
30. PATHUKUTTY,
31. IBRAHIM,
32. SUBAIDA,
33. NAFEESA,
34. MUHAMMED HANEEFA,
35. SULAIKHA,
36. PARAMBATH MUHAMMED,
37. HAMZAKUTTY HAJI,
38. HAIDRU,
39. SAIDALIKUTTY,
40. MUHAMMED ASHRAF,
41. MINNATH MOL,
42. ABDUL LATHEEF,
43. MUSTHAFA,
44. AYAMMA UMMA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.HARISH R. MENON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :29/09/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.F.A. No. 413 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Bhavadasan, J,
It is unnecessary to go into the details of the
appeal for the simple reason that it can be disposed of on
the basis of the compromise entered into between the
contesting parties.
2. The appellants and the contesting respondents
have filed a compromise petition, which they pray may be
accepted and necessary modifications may be brought
about in the final decree passed by the court below.
3. On gong through the compromise petition, it is
seen that the parties have agreed to have a particular mode
of allocation of property shown as item No.3, which is
taken in by clause 1(a) of the final decree passed by the
court below. Accepting the compromise, clause 1(a) of the
final decree passed by the court below, which is under
challenge, stands modified as follows:
R.F.A.413/2009.. 2
The plaintiff has agreed for allotment of
35 cents of land in item No.3 instead of 40 cents of
land allotted in the final decree. The appellants
have also agreed to the same and they have agreed
for allotting 35 cents of land in item No.3 in favour
of the first respondent/plaintiff. The Commissioner
shall identify and set part 35 cents of land with
equal measurements on four sides in north-eastern
portion of item No.3 to be allotted to the first
respondent as per clause 1(a) in the impugned final
decree.
4. The matter shall go back to the trial court for
locating the property agreed upon by the parties in terms of
the above compromise. The compromise shall form part of
the decree. Parties shall appear before the lower appellate
court on 20.10.2010. Records shall be returned to the court
below, if received.
R.F.A.413/2009.. 3
We also express our appreciation for the
commendable work done by the Mediator in brining about a
conciliation between the parties.
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan,
Judge
P. Bhavadasan,
Judge
sb.
