IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 FAO.No. 253 of 2006() ------------------------------ AS.26/1993 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM OS.16/1983 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,PATTAMBI .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS ------------------------------------------------------ 1. PARUKUTTY NESSIAR, W/O. RAGHAVA PERUMBRA NAIR, D/O. KIZHE KALATHIL PULLAYIL KALATHIL KALLYANI KUTTY NESSIAR, VETTATHOOR POST, MELATTOOR (VIA), PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. 2. VIJAYANUNNI, S/O. RAGHAVA PERUMBRA NAIR, -DO- -DO- 3. GEETHAREMANI, S/O. RAGHAVA PERUMBRA NAIR, -DO- -DO- 4. NANDANUNNI, S/O. RAGHAVA PERUMBRA NAIR, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/DEFENDANT --------------------------------------------------------------- * MARAKKAR, S/O. CHERUTHODIYIL AYDRUMAN, MARUTHUR AMSOM, PUVVAKKODE DESOM, MARUTHOOR (POST), OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-679 306.(DIED) ADDL. R2 TO R10 IMPLEADED. 2. MARIYAKUTTY, W/O. LATE MARAKKAR, AGED 65 YEARS, CHERUTHODI HOUSE, POOVAKKODE MARUTHOOR P.O., MELEPATTAMBI (VIA.) PALAKKAD (DT) PIN 679 306. tss F.A.O. NO.263/2006 3. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. LATE MARAKKAR, DO. DO. 4. MOHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. LATE MARAKKAR DO. DO. 5. NABEESA, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O. LATE MARAKKAR DO. DO. 6. AYISHA, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O. LATE MARAKKAR DO. DO. 7. HAMZA, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE MARAKKAR DO. DO. 8. SULAIMAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. LATE MARAKKAR DO. DO. 9. IBRAHIM, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. LATE MARAKKAR DO. DO. 10. YOUSUFF, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. LATE MARAKKAR DO. DO. ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENT ADDL. R2 TO R10 AS THE LRS OF DECEASED IST RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DTD. 12.1.2010 IN IA. 1543/2008. ADDL. R2 TO R9 BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON ADDL. R2 TO R9 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.APPU THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O.No. 253 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Suit was one for recovery of possession, mesne profits and damages. Suit was decreed by the trial court. The defendant went up in appeal. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration. It is against the said order the present F.A.O has been filed. 2. It is unnecessary to go into the details for the simple reason that the parties had filed a compromise petition and pray that a decree may be passed in terms of the compromise so that, an end can be put to the litigation. 3. I.A.No.3634o f 2011 is the compromise petition filed by the parties. On going through the compromise petition I find nothing wrong with the same and there is nothing against the law in the compromise petition filed by the parties. There is no reason why it could not be accepted. In the result :- The impugned order of the lower :2: F.A.O.No. 253 of 2006 appellate court is set aside, so also the judgment and decree of the trial court. And a decree is passed in terms of the compromise terms filed by the parties incorporating the following:- It is decided that properties included in schedule 'A' annexed to this petition will be owned and possessed by respondents herein. The properties included in schedule 'B' annexed to the petition will be owned and possessed as if the owners by petitioners 1 to 4 who are the plaintiffs in O.S.no.16/1983. Copy of the sketch is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A1. Copy of the schedule of the properties is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A2 In the light of the compromise between the parties, the parties have already cut and removed the trees and other improvements standing in the properties and there is no dispute concerning the value of the improvements in the properties. The compromise petition filed by the parties will also form a part of the decree. There will be no order as to costs. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE kkj