IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AS No. 292 of 2002(E)
1. THANKACHAN, SON OF PAPPACHAN,
... Petitioner
2. MINI THANKACHAN, WIFE OF THANKACHAN,
Vs
1. PAUL, SON OF VARKEY, KOTTACKA @
... Respondent
2. VARKEY, SON OF POULO, ARACKAL,
3. AUGUSTHY, SON OF AUGUSTHY,
4. THOMAS, SON OF OUSEPH,
5. AUGUSTHY, SON OF POULO,
6. CHAKKU, SON OF MATHU, KOTTTACKKA @
7. PAPPACHAN, SON OF DEVASSY,
8. SAMSON, SON OF CHACKU, MULAVARICKA,
9. ANTONY, SON OF POULO, MULAVARICKKA,
10. POULOKUTTY, SON OF POULO,
11. FRANCIS, SON OF KUNJU VARIED,
12. DEVASSY @ PAPPU, SON OF POULO,
13. MARY, WIFE OF LATE KOCHU POULO, DO. DO.
14. JOY, SON OF LATE KOCHY POULO, DO. DO.
15. CHAKKU, SON OF POULO, DO. DO.
16. THOMAS, SON OF POULO,
17. ELSY, WIFE OF LATE OUSEPH,
18. ELIAKUTTY, DAUGHTER OF POULO,
19. MARY, DAUGHTER OF POULO, AND WIFE
20. ALPHONSA, DAUGHTER OF POULO,
21. ROSY, WIFE OF LATE DEVASSY, PALATTY,
22. VALSA, DAUGHTER OF DEVASSY, DO. DO.
23. PAULSON, SON OF DEVASSY, DO. DO.
24. DEVASSYKUTTY, SON OF DEVASSY, DO. DO.
25. ANSON, SON OF DEVASSY, DO. DO.
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
Dated :19/03/2007
O R D E R
K.Padmanabhan Nair,J.
----------------------------------------------
A.S.Nos.292 of 2002-E & 392 of 2002-A
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 19th day of March, 2007
JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs 1 to 11 filed a suit for specific performance
alleging that defendants 1, 4 to 6 and the predecessor in interest
of defendants 2 and 3 had entered into an agreement for sale in
their favour in respect of the suit property, but subsequently they
sold the property to defendants 7 to 9. So, they sought specific
performance of the contract for sale. Though the defendants
contested the suit, it was partly allowed. The parties to the
agreements, Exhibits A1 to A3, or their legal heirs except minors,
namely Jobin and Bibin, were directed to execute sale deed in
favour of the plaintiffs with regard to their share in the plaint
schedule property on deposit of the balance sale consideration.
Challenging the decree and judgment passed in the case,
defendants 15 and 16 filed A.S.No.292 of 2002 and defendants 2
to 6 and 10 to 14 filed A.S.No.392 of 2002.
2. When these appeals came up for hearing, the
appellants in A.S.No.292 of 2002, respondents 1 to 5, 7 to 11
and legal representatives of 6th respondent in that appeal
A.S.Nos.292 & 392 of 2002
– 2 –
submitted that they have settled the matter out of Court. It is
agreed that the decree passed in the suit can be set aside. It is
also agreed that the two sale deeds, bearing No.1098 of 1995
and 1099 of 1995 of S.R.O. Sreemoolanagaram and the two
release deeds, bearing Nos.2029 of 1995 and 2029 of 1995 of
S.R.O. Sreemoolanagaram, are valid and binding on respondents
1 to 5, 7 to 11 and additional respondents 28 to 34. The
appellants filed an application supported by an affidavit of the 1st
appellant along with the compromise. I have allowed that
application and recorded the compromise. So, the appeals are
only to be disposed of in terms of compromise.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed. The decree
and judgment passed by the Court below in O.S.No.172 of 1995
are hereby set aside. The suit is disposed of in terms of
compromise. The terms of compromise will form part of the
judgment. The parties are directed to suffer their costs.
C.M.P.No.3042 of 2002 in A.S.No.292 of 2002 shall stand
dismissed.
K.Padmanabhan Nair
Judge
vku/-