IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2011 / 12TH ASWINA 1933 SA.No. 99 of 2002() ------------------- AS.6/2000 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM OS.1530/1997 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------- SMT.NANCY JOSE, W/O.K.V.JOSE, 42/2042-A, THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. *(SUBSTITUTED) * K.V. JOSE, S/O K.J. VARKEY, AGED 51 YEARS, KANNAMPUZHA KALIYADEN HOUSE, H.No.64/2748, TATAPURAM SUKUMARAN ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHIN – 682018. **( DIED, L.Rs IMPLEADED) ** ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2. DR. BABU GEORGE, S/O KANNAMPUZHA JOSEPH GEORGE, AGED 44 YEARS, RSIDING AT L-47, GCDA, SMARTO ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020. 3. KANNAMPUSHA VARKEY MATHEW, S/O KANNAMPUZHA JOSEPH GEORGE, AGED 41 YEARS, SEA VIEW FLAT D-4, KANNAMPUZHA KALIYADEN,BROADWAY NORTHEND, COCHIN – 31, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY DR. BABU GEORGE, S/O KANNAMPUZHA JOSEPH GEORGE, AGED 44 YEARS, RSIDING AT L-47, GCDA, SMARTO ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020. 4. KANNANPUZHA VARKEY KURIAN, S/O KANNAMPUZHA JOSEPH GEORGE, AGED 51 YEARS, SEA VIEW FLAT D-4, KANNAMPUZHA KALIYADEN,BROADWAY NORTHEND, COCHIN – 31, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY DR. BABU GEORGE, S/O KANNAMPUZHA JOSEPH GEORGE, AGED 44 YEARS, RSIDING AT L-47, GCDA, SMARTO ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020. * THE NAME AND ADDRESS SHOWN ABOVE IS SUBSTITUTED AS THE APPELLANT IN THE PLACE OF ORIGINAL APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 27.7.2008 IN I.A. 477/06 SA.No. 99 of 2002 - 2- ** ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE L.Rs. OF SOLE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DAE 17.2.1011 IN I.A. 73/2011. BY ADV. SRI.S.K.BRAHMANANDAN SRI.G.SREENIVASA PRABHU SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU SRI.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY FOR ADDL. APPELLANTS SMT.ANNIE GEORGE FOR ADDL.APPELLANTS RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------- 1. SRI.ERAMBALA VENUGOPALAN NAYANAR, ADVOCATE, S/O. KELAPPAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT 43/686, POWER HOUSE-EXTENSION ROAD, THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. (DIED. LRs. IMPLEADED) 2. SMT.SOBHANA AMMA, W/O. ERAMBALA VENUGOPALAN NAYANAR, RESIDING IN -DO- -DO-. *** ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3. VEENA.AC, D/O LATE ERAMBALA VENUGOPALAN NAYANAR, RESIDING AT 43/686, POWER HOUSE EXTENSION ROAD, THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 4. VIDHYA.A.C., D/O, LATE ERAMBALA VENUGOPALAN NAYANAR, RESIDING AT 43/686, POWER HOUSE EXTENSION ROAD, THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 5. VENUGOPAL.A.C. S/O.LATE ERAMBALA VENUGOPALAN NAYANAR, RESIDING AT 43/686, POWER HOUSE EXTENSION ROAD, THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. *** ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS R3 TO R5 ARE IMPLEADED BEING THE L.Rs OF DECEASED R1, AND R2 IS RECORDED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED R1 AS PER ORDER DATED 5.10.2010 IN I.A. 2364/06. ADV. SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN FOR R1 & R2 SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN FOR ADDL.R3-5 THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ------------------------ S.A.No.99 OF 2002 and Cross Objection ------------------------------------- Dated 4th October, 2011 J U D G M E N T A suit was filed by appellant against respondents 1 and 2 for permanent prohibitory injunction from putting up any construction in plaint B schedule pathway and causing any obstruction in plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment of plaint B schedule pathway. Defendant's 1 and 2 (R1 and R2) contested the matter. Evidence was adduced. PW1 was examined Ext.A1 to Ext.A4 were marked on plaintiff's side. First defendant was examined as DW1, Ext.B1 to B5 were marked on the side of defendants. 2. Counter claim was also raised for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the plaintiff from keeping any vehicle in plaint B schedule property etc. Mandatory injunction was also sought for. Additional Munsiff Court decreed the suit in part. Permanent prohibitory injunction was granted against respondents nos.1 and 2 restraining them from putting up any construction over plaint B schedule property and causing any kind SA. No.99/02 2 of obstruction from plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment of plaint B schedule property. 3. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was passed restraining plaintiff (I think there is a clerical error, which is not sought to be reviewed) from keeping any vehicle parked in plaint B schedule property for a long time and unloading any materials into plaint B schedule so as to obstruct the use of plaint B schedule property by the defendants. Mandatory injunction in the counter claim was not allowed. 4. An appeal was filed by defendants before the Sub Court and the decree of the trial court was modified as follows: “The defendants/appellants and their men are restrained by way of a permanent prohibitory injunction from putting up any structure on the southern most portion of the plaint B schedule property having a length of 15 feet and width of 17 links or causing any kind of obstruction to the plaintiff's peaceful use of that portion for ingress and egress to the plaint A schedule property. 2. The plaintiff/respondent and her men are restrained by way of a permanent prohibitory injunction from exercising their right of easement over the B schedule property except over its easement over its southern most portion having a length of 15 feet and width of 17 links, from causing any obstruction on the B schedule property by parking vehicles on it for a long time, or from obstructing in any other manner the SA. No.99/02 3 defendants' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the B schedule property. 3. The parties shall bear their respective costs both here and below.” 5. This second appeal is filed by plaintiff challenging the appellate decree and judgment. Cross Objection was also filed. During the pendancy of this appeal plaintiff was substituted by her husband in view of the subsequent development. First respondent died and legal representatives were impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 5. 6. This case was referred for mediation. On the intervention of mediator, matter was settled and a settlement agreement was entered into between the parties. A sketch is also appended to the settlement. Both sides agree that a decree can be passed in terms of the mediation settlement and the suit and the counter claim can be disposed of accordingly. 7. Hence a decree is passed, in accordance with the terms of compromise. The sketch will also form part of the decree. This appeal and Cross Objection are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou. // True copy//