IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 RSA.No. 366 of 2009() --------------------- AS.73/2001 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD OS.121/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT/2ND DEFENDANT ---------------------------------------------------------- MOHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 49 YEARS, KODIKARUMBIL, KAYARADI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SRI.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT & 1ST RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF & IST DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------ 1. SUKUMARAN, S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 59 YEARS, DEVI KRIPA, KALMUKKU, NEMMARA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (*) 2. VELAYUDHAN, S/O.ARUMUGHAN, AGED 54 YEARS, KOLLENGOD HOUSE, VELLACHIKULAMBU, OLIPPARA DESOM, THIRUVAZHIYOD VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (DELETED) (*)RESPONDENT No.2 IS DELETED FROM ARRAY OF PARTIES VIDE ORDER DATED 29.03.2010 ON I.A.No.837/2010. ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH FOR R1 SRI.P.R.RAJA FOR R1 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.S.A.No.366 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT This appeal arises from judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge-I, Palakkad in A.S.No.73 of 2001 reversing dismissal of the suit (for specific performance) and granting a decree in favour of respondent No.1 directing appellant and respondent No.2 to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 on the latter depositing Rs.2,500/- in the trial court towards balance sale consideration. According to respondent No.1 the suit property which belonged to respondent No.2/defendant No.1 was agreed to be assigned to him for consideration. Appellant/defendant No.2 is a subsequent assignee from respondent No.2 who is also bound by the decree of the first appellate court and hence is aggrieved. Now it is submitted that appellant and respondent No.1 have settled the dispute outside the court and have filed I.A.No.838 of 2010 to pass a decree in accordance with the compromise. 2. I have heard learned counsel for appellant and respondent No.1. Respondent No.2/defendant No.1 has been removed from the array of parties as per order on I.A.No.837 of 2010. RSA No.366/2009 2 3. Terms and conditions of the settlement between appellant and respondent No.1 are embodied in I.A.No.838 of 2010. That application is allowed and compromise is recorded. Resultantly Second Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise (vide I.A.No.838 of 2010) and a decree is passed in accordance with the compromise. Compromise shall form part of the decree of this Court. I.A.No.828 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks