IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 16613 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS 204/1989 IN OS.32/1987 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. PADMAKUMARY, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.LATE SURENDRA KURUP, SURESH BHAVAN, ATTIPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUGANDH, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.PADMAKUMARY, SURESH BHAVAN, ATTIPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.J.JAYAKUMAR, MR.S.JIJI. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- LEKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, PUTHEN VEEDU, ORANALLOOR, NAVAIKULAM, CHIRATINKIL TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.N.M.JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.16613/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 26/05/2004 IN A.S.NO.298/1993 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P2: COPY OF THE FINAL DECREE APPLICATION, I.A.NO.1941/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE COURT BELOW. P3: COPY OF THE FINAL DECREE APPLICATION, I.A.NO.1389/207 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT BELOW. P4: COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION FILED BY THE PARTIES BEFORE THE COURT BELOW. P5: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DTD. 20/03/2009 IN BOTH FINAL DECREE APPLICATIONS PASSED BY THE COURT BELOW. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.16613 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i. to set aside Ext.P5 order passed by the Sub Judge's Court, Attingal and direct the court below to pass a final decree within the time fixed by this Honourable Court in the light of Ext.P4 compromise petition filed by the parties. ii. to grant such other reliefs that this Honourable Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.204 of 1989 on the file of the Sub Court, Attingal. The respondent is the defendant in that suit. Another suit was filed by the respondent as plaintiff as O.S.No.32 of 1987, in which, the petitioners are the defendants. Both the suits were for partition in which the parties claimed right as the legal heirs of one Surendra Kurup. Petitioners claimed right as the wife WPC.16613/2009 2 and son and the respondent as the mother. The suits were jointly tried and a preliminary decree was passed allotting shares to the parties. Final decree application was moved by both parties and while such proceedings continued parties reached an out of court settlement and they filed a compromise petition signed by them and also their counsel requesting the court to pass a decree in terms of the compromise. The court below passed Ext.P5 order to the effect that the compromise is recorded but the parties can pay stamp duty and register documents in terms of the compromise. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. The respondent has no objection in setting aside Ext.P5 order and issuing directions to the court below for passing a final decree in terms of the compromise. Perusing Ext.P5 order, I find it cannot be sustained under law. The suits were filed by both the parties two decades ago and they have now reached a WPC.16613/2009 3 settlement. The only request they want is to pass a decree in terms of the compromise to have an imprint of the court on such compromise to get legal sanctity and finality of the disputes between them. The direction of the court under Ext.P5 that they can execute documents by paying stamp duty and registering the documents after recording the compromise as part of the record, needless to point out, amounts to abdication of its jurisdiction. If the terms are found legal, proper and acceptable and there is no legal hurdle in accepting it, the court has to accept and pass a decree in terms of the compromise. Sanction of the court for approval of the compromise and passing of a decree in terms of the compromise that alone was requested by the parties which ought to have been accepted. Setting aside Ext.P5 order, I direct the court below to pass appropriate orders on the compromise petition filed by the parties within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed accordingly. Handover a copy of this judgment to the counsel on both sides, and transmit the copy of the judgment to the court WPC.16613/2009 4 below forthwith. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp