IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 RSA.No. 387 of 2003(D) ---------------------- AS.239/2000 of V ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM OS.275/1997 of II ADDL.M.C., ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DFENDANT: ----------------------------- SOMAN S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 57 YEARS, (DIED) KANNACHERIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR, NADAKKAVU P.O. ADDL. 2. SUVASINI.T.K., W/O.LATE SOMANATHAN, AGED 63 YEARS, KANNAMCHERIL HOUSE, NADAKAVU P.O.. UDYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM. '' 3. SUNITA.K.S., W/O.SUNIL LAL, AGED 37 YEARS, PAZHAVELIL HOUS, BRAHMAMANGALAM P.O, KOTTAYAM. '' 4. SUMITHA.K.S., W/O.SAJI, AGED 35 YEARS, KANNAMCHERIL HOUSE, NADAKAVU P.O., UDYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM. '' 5. SUJITHA K.S., W/O.BIMAL RAJ, AGED 27 YEARS, PADMAPRABHA, NADAKAVU P.O. UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM. (ADDL. APPELLANTS 2 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED SOLE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 4/6/09 IN I.A.NO.1003/09 IN R.S.A.) BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM JOHN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS --------------- 1. KARTHIYANI W/O. LATE SANKARAN, AGED 73 YEARS, KANNEL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, NADAKKAVU P.O. 2. K.S.DIVAKARAN, S/O. LATE SANKARAN, AGED 50 YEARS, DO. DO. 3. K.S.MANI, S/O. LATE SANKARAN, AGED 34 YEARS, DO .DO. ADV. SRI.K.K.VIJAYAKUMAR FOR R1TOR3 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.S.A.NO.387/2003 ORDER ON I.A.NO.28/2003 IN R.S.A.NO.387/2003 --------------------- Dismissed. 10/5/2009 Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- R.S.A.NO.387 OF 2003 --------------------------- DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2009 JUDGMENT The sole defendant in O.S.No.275/97 on the file of the IInd Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam is the appellant herein. The suit was filed by the respondents herein for declaration of right of easement and injunction. The declaration sought for is that the plaintiffs are entitled to use the plaint C schedule property as a pathway for their ingress and egress to the plaint A schedule property. The suit was decreed by the trial court declaring that the plaintiff have easement right by prescription over the plaint C schedule property and a decree of mandatory and prohibitory injunction was also passed. The defendant/appellant preferred an appeal before the V Additional District Court, Ernakulam challenging the decree and judgment passed by the trial court. The Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the -2- R.S.A.No.387/2003 trial Court. 2. During the pendency of the second appeal, the parties agreed to settle the disputes between them. Accordingly, they filed a compromise petition as I.A.No.2719/2008 under order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The terms of settlement are recorded in the compromise petition. A plan is also attached to the said petition. The prayer in the said petition is to pass a decree in terms of the compromise. I have gone through the averments in the petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the C.P.C. All the parties are signed the compromise petition. 3. In the circumstances, a decree is passed in terms of the compromise. The terms of settlement stipulated in the compromise petition are recorded and the compromise petition and the plan attached therein shall form part of this judgment. Second Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv. -3- R.S.A.No.387/2003