IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY,THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/1ST ASWINA, 1936 RSA.No. 495 of 2014 (A) AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2013 IN AS NO. 142/2010 OF THE SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.07.2010 IN OS NO. 258/2006 OF THE II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA APPELLANT/APPELLANT/1ST DEFENDANT: CHELLAKSHI, D/O. KAMALAMMA, AGED 80, VELLIKUZHI VADAKKEKKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, MARAYAMUTTAM DESOM, PERUMKADAVILA VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 2 TO 7: 1. GIRIJA, D/O. CHELLAKSHY,AGED 55 YEARS, CHARUMKUZHI VADAKKEKKARA VEEDU, MARAYAMUTTOM.P.O., PERUNKADAVILA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695131. 2. SASIKUMAR, S/O. VARGHESE NADAR, AGED 60, VELLIKUZHI VADAKKEKKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, MARAYAMUTTAM P.O., PERUNKADAVILA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695131. 3. SANTHI, D/O. CHELLAKSHI, AGED 50, VELLIKUZHI VADAKKEKKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, MARAYAMUTTAM P.O., PERUNKADAVILA VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695631. 4. VINCENT, S/O. VARGHESE NADAR, AGED 47 YEARS THUMBOTTU KIZHAKKEKKARA VEEDU, AYIROOR DESOM, PERUNKADAVILA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICTPIN-695131. 5. BERNABAS, AGED 52, S/O. VARGHESE NADAR VELLIKUZHI VADAKKEKKARA PUTHEN VEEDU MARAYAMUTTAM .P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695131. 6. MARRY STELLA, AGED 40, D/O. CHELLAKSHI VELLIKUZHI VADAKKEKKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, MARAYAMUTTAM .P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695131. 7. STANLY JOHN, S/O. WILLIAMS, AGED 55 VELLIKUZHI VADAKKEKKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, MARAYAMUTTAM .P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695131. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. CHITAMBARESH, J R.S.A. NO. 495 OF 2014 Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2014 JUDGMENT
The courts below have concurrently upheld Ext.A1 settlement deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs. The scribe of Ext.A1 settlement deed has been examined as PW2 and the Sub Registrar has been examined as PW4. Very little evidence is required to uphold a settlement deed unless the same is burdensome or onerous.
2. The property has been sufficiently identified with the aid of as many as three commission reports. The plaintiff was given opportunity to file the present suit under Ext.A2 judgment of this court in the earlier round. There is no question of law much less any substantial question of law in the Regular Second Appeal.
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE ncd