IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5133 of 2008(J) ------------------------- OS.174/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. VADAKKERATH RAGHAVAN S/O.MOORIKARAN VADAKKERATH APPU RESIDING AT ORIE, P.O., KAITHAKAD HOSDRUG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. VADAKKERATH VASU S/O.MOORIKARAN VADAKKERATH APPU RESIDING AT ORIE, P.O., KAITHAKAD HOSDRUG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. VADAKKERATH PADMANABHAN S/O.MOORIKARAN VADAKKERATH APPU RESIDING AT ORIE, P.O., KAITHAKAD HOSDRUG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. VADAKKERATH SREEDHARAN S/O.MOORIKARAN VADAKKERATH APPU RESIDING AT ORIE, P.O., KAITHAKAD HOSDRUG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SALEENA P.P. BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SRI.M.HARISHARMA SRI.T.P.ELDHOSE SMT.O.K.SANTHA RESPONDENT: ------------- VALAPPIL NARAYANAN S/O. MOORIKARAN VADAKKERATH APPU ORIE, PADENA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 5133 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Hosdurg, in IA 1904/07 in OS 174/04. 2. In the suit for partition, a preliminary decree had been passed and subsequent to the preliminary decree, the parties have entered into an agreement, which is produced as Ext.P1. This was during the pendency of the appeal before the Lower Court. It is seen from Ext.P1 that Sri. Vadakkerath Seedharan, who is one of the writ petitioners before this court, has not signed Ext.P1 but has admitted the same in the writ petition contending that an agreement is entered into and he is prepared to abide by the terms of the agreement. 3. The observation of the court below that an agreement cannot be entered into after passing of the preliminary decree does not appear to be correct for the reason that the parties at any stage of the litigation can enter into a compromise or an agreement for relief on the basis of the said document. When all the parties agree for such a course, I feel the court cannot compel that the properties has to be divided only as directed in the preliminary decree. WPC NO 5133/08 2 Therefore, I set aside the order of the court below and direct that court to reconsider IA 1904/07 in OS 174/04 on the basis of the discussions made above and when it is satisfied that all the parties have entered into an agreement subsequent to the passing of the preliminary decree and while the matter was pending before the appellate court, the court can accept the same and pass appropriate orders in the light of the said agreement. The writ petition is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 5133/08 3