DANIEL v. SHAJAN
Court: High Court of Kerala
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Kerala judgment dated 2020-12-04. DANIEL v. SHAJAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. V. ANILKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 RFA. No. 322 OF 2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O. S. NO. 216/2012 DATED 18-02-2017 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: DANIEL AGED 55 YEARS S/O. DANIEL, AMBALATHAKIDIYIL HOUSE, EZHAKKARANADU KARA, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK BY ADVS. SRI. P. M. JOSHI SMT. SIJI K. PAUL RESPONDENTS/2ND PLAINTIFF & ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS 3 TO 5: 1 SHAJAN S/O. PAULOSE, AGED 52 YEARS, THURUTHUMMEL HOUSE, PARIYARAM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN - 682 308 2 LISSY W/O. LATE JOSE, AGED 53 YEARS, THURUTHUMMEL HOUSE, PARIYARAM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN - 682 308 3 ALBIN T JOSE S/O. LATE JOSE, AGED 25 YEARS,THURUTHUMMEL HOUSE, PARIYARAM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN - 682 308. RFA. Nos. 322 OF 2018 & 120 OF 2019 4 BEN THURUTHUMMEL (MINOR) S/O.
LATE JOSE, AGED 15 YEARS(DOB 3-1-2002) THURUTHUMMEL HOUSE, PARIYARAM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN - 682 308 REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND LISSY, W/O. LATE JOSE, AGED 48 YEARS, THURUTHUMMEL HOUSE, PARIYARAM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN - 682 308 R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI. ALIAS M. CHERIAN THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04. 12. 2020, ALONG WITH RFA. 120/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RFA. Nos. 322 OF 2018 & 120 OF 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. V. ANILKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 RFA. No. 120 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O. S. NO. 216/2012 DATED 18-02- 2017 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS 2 TO 5: 1 SHAJAN, AGED 53 YEARS S/O. PAULOSE, THURUTHUMMEL HOUSE, PARIYARAM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 LISSY, AGED 51 YEARS W/O. JOSE, THURUTHUMMEL HOUSE, PARIYARAM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3 ALHIN T. JOSE, AGED 23 YEARS S/O. JOSE, THURUTHUMMEL HOUSE, PARIYARAM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4 BEN THURUTHEMMEL (MINOR) AGED 17 YEARS (DATE OF BIRTH 03/01/2002), S/O. JOSE, THURUTHUMMEL HOUSE, PARIYARAM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER/LISSY (2ND APPELLANT) AS THE NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN. BY ADV. SRI. ALIAS M. CHERIAN RFA. Nos. 322 OF 2018 & 120 OF 2019 RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: DANIEL, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. DANIEL, AMBALAMTHAKIDIYIL HOUSE, EZHAKKARANADU KARA, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 682 308. R1 BY ADVS. SRI. P. M. JOSHI SMT. SIJI K. PAUL THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04. 12. 2020, ALONG WITH RFA. 322/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RFA. Nos.
322 OF 2018 & 120 OF 2019 JUDGMENT [ RFA. 322/2018, RFA. 120/2019 ] Dated this the 4th day of December 2020 In both these appeals, the parties entered into a compromise and submitted a memorandum of agreement under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and I am satisfied that the compromise entered into is voluntary. The terms and conditions of the compromise are, therefore, recorded. Decree is passed in terms of the compromise. In the result, these appeals are disposed of in terms of compromise. The memorandum of agreement shall form part of this compromise decree. The appellants will get refund of the full court fee paid. Sd/- T. V. ANILKUMAR JUDGE DK RFA. Nos. 322 OF 2018 & 120 OF 2019 The judgment dated 4/12/2020 in RFA (Indigent) No.
322/2018 is clarified as per order dated 22/06/2022 in the Appeal as follows “Since the matter was settled out of court and the appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at by the parties, there is no necessity to initiate proceedings under Rule 14 of Order 33 CPC for recovery of the court fee payable. The appellant will stand exempted from the payment of court fee in view of the legal position settled by the Apex Court in High Court of Judicature at Madras rep. By its Registrar General v. M. C. Subramaniam and others [2021 (2) KHC 62]. ” Sd/- JOINT REGISTRAR
Source: High Court of Kerala. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.