IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 RFA.No. 338 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/02/2003 IN IA.454/1993 IN OS.225/1976 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT NO.2, SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENTS 15/LRS OF DECEASED 1ST DEFENDANT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SULOCHANA, W/O.SUKUMARAN, MUKRAKATTIL, KOTTEKAD AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. 2. K.S.SUKURAJ, -DO- -DO-. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHESE, SRI.M.P. LIJU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIOERS 2-6, RESPONDENT NO.,1 , 3 TO 6, 8 TO 12 & SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENTS 13, 14 & 16.: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PAZHANANKUTTY, KUNNUPARAMBIL, KANNAMBRA AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK. 2. KANAKARAJAN, -DO- -DO-. 3. RAJANKUTTY, -DO- -DO-. 4. SARASWATHY, -DO -D0-. 5. SALKUMAR, -DO- -DO-. 6. K.V.RAMACHANDRAN, KODAKKADU HOUSE, KUZHALMANNAM AMSOM DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK. 7. BHAGIRATHI, AVULLIKULAM, PALLATHODI AMSOM DESOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. RFA.No. 338 of 2006()2006 -------------------------------------- 8. SAROJINI, POKKATH VEEDU, KUSHALMANNAM AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK. 9. SYAMALA, MUKRAKATTIL, KOTTEKAD AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. 10. THILAKAVATHY, ETTIKANDATHU HOUSE, PERIGOTTUKURISSI AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK. 11. PALAKKAD LAND BOARD. 12. VALLIAMMA @ MADHAVI, MANITHATTIL, KUZHALMANNAM AMSOM, ALATHU TALUK. 13. LAKSHMIKUTTY, ATHIKOTIL, PANAYUR AMSOM DESOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. 14. KOUSALLYA, KONNANKOTTIL, VADAVANNUR AMSOM, CHITTUR TALUK. 15. SAROJINI, -DO- -DO-. 16. K.S.SUSMITHA, MUKRAKATTIL, KOTTEKAD AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. 17. K.S.SHYLAJA, -D0. -DO-. 18. K.S.SUBHASHANI, -DO-. -DO-. R1 TO R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY R4 TO R6, R10 BY ADVS. SRI.K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN SMT.SATHYA SHREEPRIYA THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.F.A.No.338 of 2006 & C.M.Application No.769 of 2006 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. This application is filed seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a final decree. Having regard to the fact that the suit was filed in 1976, we looked into the merits of the appeal, irrespective of the manner in which the delay is sought to be explained in the application seeking condonation of delay. We find that the final decree application was ultimately decided on consent of parties. The Commissioner, who was deputed to carry out the division in terms of the preliminary decree, produced plans and reports. There were objections initially, but, the learned trial Judge has minuted in the order that, both sides agreed at hearing that even though there are minor discrepancies, they are amenable for passing a final decree. It was accordingly that RFA.338/2006 : 2 : the final decree was passed. The consent on the basis of which the final decree was passed is minuted by the court below and that cannot be subjected to an appeal before us even if the appellants have any grievance as to the statement in the judgment regarding what transpired in the court below at the final hearing. It may be a matter for review, but never for an appeal. 2. We are also told that many of the parties had taken delivery of the plots in terms of the final decree. Though we had initially granted an order deferring all further delivery proceedings during the pendency of this delay petition, by an order stating reasons, we had vacated that interim order on 14.03.2011. All that now continues is an order issued by this Court, directing parties that no act of waste shall be committed. 3. We are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal which is against the consent decree cannot be RFA.338/2006 : 3 : entertained. In that view of the matter, we also find that there is no ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4. In the result, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay and consequently, reject the appeal. All interim orders granted earlier will stand vacated. This is obviously without prejudice to the right of the appellants to pursue any remedy in accordance with law. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge