High Court Kerala High Court

P.C.Chandrasekharan vs Girija Devi on 11 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
P.C.Chandrasekharan vs Girija Devi on 11 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RFA.No. 459 of 2009()


1. P.C.CHANDRASEKHARAN,S/O. PANKAJAKSHY-
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. GIRIJA DEVI, D/O.BALACHANDRAN, AGED
                       ...       Respondent

2. PADMAKSHY AMMA, D/O. MADHAVI AMMA,

3. AMBIKA DEVI, D/O.PADMAKSHY AMMA,

4. UNNIKRISHNAN,S/O. PADMAKSHY AMMA, AGED

5. DIVAKARAN S/O. PADMAKSHY AMMA,

6. BALACHANDRAN,S/O. PADMAKSHY AMMA,

7. RATHNAMMA, W/O RAMAN PILLAI, AGED 81

8. A.R.RAJAN,S/O. RAMAN PILLAI, AGED 59,

9. SANTHAMMA D/O. RAMAN PILLAI, AGED 57,

10. NIRMALA D/O. RAMAN PILLAI, AGED 55,

11. RADHAMANI AMMA, D/O. PANKAJAKSHY AMMA

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.BABU KUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.M.MATHEW (MANNOOR ETTONNIL)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :11/01/2011

 O R D E R
        M.N. KRISHNAN & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.
            = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                R.F.A. 459 OF 2009
          = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
     Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011.

                  J U D G M E N T

GOPINATHAN, J.

10th defendant in O.S.236/06 on the file of

the II Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam is the

appellant. First respondent herein instituted

the above suit seeking a decree of partition.

After a full-fledged trial, the suit was decreed

whereby the plaintiff was found entitled to get

one out of three shares over the plaint schedule

property. Consequently, appropriate reliefs

were granted by the impugned preliminary decree.

Challenging the above preliminary decree this

appeal was preferred by the 10th defendant to

whom 1/3rd share was granted along with 11th

defendant. The matter was referred to the

Mediation Centre and it was settled in between

R.F.A. 459 OF 2009
-:2:-

the appellant/10th defendant and the first

respondent(plaintiff). Accordingly, settlement

agreement was drafted and signed by the

appellant/10th defendant and first

respondent/plaintiff and their counsel. We find

no reason to reject the settlement agreement as

it is in accordance with law. By the settlement

agreement the appellant/10th defendant had

agreed to purchase the share of the first

respondent for value shown therein under clause

(4).

2. In the above circumstances the appeal

is disposed of in terms of the settlement

agreement. The judgment and decree impugned

would stand modified to that extent. Settlement

agreement dated 20.12.2010 would form part of

the decree.

Sd/-M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

Sd/-P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.

ul/- true copy
P.A. to Judge.