High Court Kerala High Court

Nandini vs N.Padmavathy on 11 March, 2009

Kerala High Court
Nandini vs N.Padmavathy on 11 March, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

FAO.No. 28 of 2006()


1. NANDINI, D/O.RAMAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. DINESAN, S/O.RAMAN,
3. RAVEENDRAN, SAI KIRAN,

                        Vs



1. N.PADMAVATHY, W/O.SREEDARAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. K.S.PADMAJAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN OF DO. DO.

3. SREEKALA VALSAN,

4. K.S.PADMADARSAN, I-20,

5. K.S.PADMASREE OF DO.

6. JALALUDEEN, S/O.ALIKUNJU,

7. MOHAMMED ABDUL KHADDAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :11/03/2009

 O R D E R
                 M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

               -------------------------------------------------

                        F.A.O.No.28 Of 2006
                                    And
                         I.A. No.892 Of 2009

              --------------------------------------------------

             Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009


                           J U D G M E N T

I.A.892 of 2008 is filed under Rule 3 of Order XXIII of

Code of Civil Procedure for recording the compromise. The

petition is jointly filed by appellants and respondents 1 to 3, 5

and 8 to 10, the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.4.

Respondents 6 and 7, who were exparte before the court below,

were already deleted from the party array as per order in

I.A.No.943 of 2009. It is stated in the petition that for avoiding

disputes in the family and for maintaining peace and harmony,

contesting respondents have no objection in restoring the final

decree judgment of the trial court in O.S.702 of 1991 on the file

of Additional Munsiff Court, Kollam dated 9.8.2001 and the third

appellant has no objection in using his private property of 1>

cents purchased by him as per sale deed No.1977/1985 as an

access to the property of respondents 1to 3, 5 and 8 to 10.

F.A.O..28/06 & I.A.892/09
2

I.A. 892 of 2009 is allowed. Compromise is recorded. The

appeal is disposed in terms of the compromise. The compromise

petition will form part of the decree.

M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

okb