IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 AS.No. 12 of 1996() ------------------- OS.408/1993 of SUB COURT,KATTAPPANA .................... APPELLANT(S)/DEFENDANTS: ---------------------------- 1. HARIDAS, SON OF CHELLAPPAN, AGED 33 YEARS, KALLANPALLIL HOUSE, MANKOTHOTTY BHAGM KALKOONATHAL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. 2. CHELLAPPAN K.P., SON OF ANANTHAN, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------ LISSY, D/O. KUNJUMON, AGED 32 YEARS, MEROTHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PEPPARAKKARA IDUKKI VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ A.S..No. 12 OF 1996 ------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge's court, Kattappana against the appellants directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directing the appellants further to deliver back the gold ornaments of 87.70 grams described as 'A' schedule in the plaint and in the alternative to realise from the appellant a sum of Rs.33,764.50 being the value of the gold ornaments with future interest at 6% p.a. The appellants have produced Exts.B1 and B2 before this court. Ext.B1 is copy of the judgment of the same sub Court in O.S. No.43/1995 and passed in favour of the first appellant and against the respondent and her father. On the terms of Ext.B1, the first appellant is allowed to realise a sum of Rs.22,218/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit together with cost of the suit from the respondent and her father. Ext.B2 is the decree in respect of Ext.B1 judgment. A.S..No.12/1996 2 Obviously, Exts.B1 and B2 have become final. In view of the finality attained by Exts.B1 and B2, I am of the view that the appellants should be permitted to adjust the amounts due to them under Exts.B1 and B2 against the amounts due from them under the impugned decree. 2. Under the above circumstances, the appeal is disposed of in the following terms;- The challenge against the impugned judgment and decree is turned down. However, the first appellant is permitted to adjust the amount which is due to him under Exts.P1 and P2 against the amounts due from him under the impugned judgment and decree. The cost in the present appeal will be borne by the parties. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk A.S..No.12/1996 3 PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ S.A.No. 12 OF 1996 ------------------------ JUDGMENT 14TH NOVEMBER 2008