Loading...

Kodalil Hamzakutty Haji vs Thadathil Ahammed @ Kasmi on 29 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Kodalil Hamzakutty Haji vs Thadathil Ahammed @ Kasmi on 29 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  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.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information