IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 Mat.Appeal.No. 140 of 2010 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/10/2009 IN IA 3165/2009 IN OP.1139/2009 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIM PETITIONER/STRANGER TO O.P. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED, S/O.K.K.MOIDEEN, AGED 56, RESIDING AT MARUTHUMKUDY HOUSE, EDATHALA (N) P.O., EDATHALA KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT IN O.P. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AISHA BEEVI, W/O.ABDUL VAHID, KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, KUTTAMASSERY KARA, THOTTUMUGHAM P.O., KEEZHMAD, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE. 2. ABDUL VAHID, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, ASHOKAPURAM, MANAKKAPPADY, ERUMATHALA P.O., ALUVA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.No.140 of 2010-G ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 9th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Appellant calls in question the order passed in I.A. 3165/2009 which is an application filed for lifting the attachment. Of course, the court below found that the attachment was effected by about 2.30 p.m whereas the registration of the document was effected by about 12.10 p.m on the same day. It is stated that the Ist respondent has instituted another O.P for declaration of nullity of document relied on. It is further stated that claim petitioner was not dared enough to enter into the box to substantiate his contention that the document executed in his favour is supported by consideration. It is found that the conduct, behavior and attitude of the claim petitioner and the facts and circumstances of the case probabilise that the claim petitioner obtained assignment deed in his name knowing fully well about the dispute between the first and second respondents and the request to lift the attachment ordered as per I.A.2995/2009 was rejected. 2. Today, when the matter came up, it is brought to M.A.140 of 2010 -2- our notice that the matter has been settled between respondents 1 and 2 and a copy of the order dated 11th April, 2011 is made available which reads as follows: “Taken up today in view of IA.1614/11. Matter settled between the parties. Petitioner filed a receipt to the effect that she received a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs (Rs. Ten Lakhs only) in full and final settlement of all her claims against the respondent. That aspect is recorded. Hence the OP is dismissed as settled between the parties. No costs.” 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Ist respondent that the OP for declaration of nullity of document is dismissed as settled. Learned counsel for the Ist respondent submitted that there is no objection to the impugned order being set aside and the IA being allowed. In the circumstance of the case, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and allow I.A.3165/2009. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS