IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 FAO.No. 282 of 2005() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/07/2005 IN EP.101/00,EA.62/05 IN OS.310/1994 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT ------------ DANDAPANI GOUNDER, AGED 65, S/O.CHELLAPPA GOUNDER, VANNAMADAI, KOZHIPATHY VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KALIYAMMA, W/O.MUTHUSWAMY GOUNDER, VANNAMADAI, KOZHIPATHY VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THANKAVEL, W/O.DEVARAJAN, VANNAMADAI, KOZHIPATHY VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW FOR R2 SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR FOR R1 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- F.A.O.No.282 of 2005 ------------------------------- Dated this the 13th July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This appeal filed against the order passed in E.A.No.62/2005 in E.P.No.101/2000 in O.S.No.310/1994, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad, by the purchaser of the property. The decree holder had instituted the suit for maintenance after seeking to set aside the registered documents and for other reliefs. The property, however, was purchased by the appellant from defendants 2 and 3 pending suit. Ultimately, a money decree was passed for maintenance which became final. In execution of the same, the property in question was sold. Later, the appellant resisted delivery and obstructed the same, which was treated as a claim and adjudicated. The court below dismissed the claim put forth by the appellant. Hence, this appeal. FAO.No.282 of 2005 2 2. During the pendency of the appeal, the matter was sent to the Mediation Centre to work out a settlement, if possible, and ultimately, it yielded the result. The matter was settled and the Mediator has filed the report along with a compromise petitioner filed by the parties and their counsel. 3. In view of the above, we dispose of the appeal recording the compromise entered into between the parties. The compromise petition will be annexed with this judgment, since in terms of the compromise, measurements have to be taken for dividing and allotting the property. It is also stated in the compromise petition that share of 42% allotted to the appellant is on the southern side of the property, which includes the residential house of the appellant, the well, bore well and farm house, and the share of fourth respondent, i.e., 58%, is on the northern side of the property. These probably could be done by appointing a Commissioner and a Surveyor for that purpose. 4. In the result, the matter is send back to the execution court to take further steps in terms of the compromise FAO.No.282 of 2005 3 and once the terms of the compromise are fully satisfied, it will record satisfaction of the decree and the sale will stand set aside. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.