IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 RSA.No. 1193 of 2009(A) ----------------------- AS.69/1998 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM OS.288/1993 of MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 2 TO 6 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. PARUKUTTY,W/O.NARAYANAN, KARALMANNA AMSOM,THEKKUMMURI DESOM IN OTTAPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. VIJAYALAKSHMI,D/O.NARAYANAN, KARALMANNA AMSOM,THEKKUMMURI DESOM IN OTTAPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. GOPALAKRISHNAN,S/O.NARAYANAN, KARALMANNA AMSOM,THEKKUMMURI DESOM IN OTTAPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. SATHEESH BABU,S/O.NARAYANAN, KARALMANNA AMSOM,THEKKUMMURI DESOM IN OTTAPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. VIJAYAKUMARI,D/O.NARAYANAN, KARALMANNA AMSOM,THEKKUMMURI DESOM IN OTTAPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SMT.P.K.THASLEENA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------- RAVUNNI,S/O.KAMMALAM KUNNATH AYYAPPAN, KARALMANNA AMSOM,VADAKKUMURI DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 ADV.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R1 ADV.SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R1 ADV.SRI. P.S.APPU FOR R1 ADV.SRI. NIMID.A.R FOR R1 ADV.SRI.ANOOP.C.A FOR R1 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.S.A No.1193 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of September 2010 JUDGMENT When the appeal came up for hearing, the counsel appearing for the first respondent who has filed a caveat submitted that in execution proceedings of the decree when delivery was ordered the parties have reached an agreement by which the appellants have unconditionally undertaken to surrender vacant possession of the property seeking extension of time to do so. Since such an agreement has been entered into and extended time requested for as provided, the appellants are estopped from challenging the decree concurrently rendered in favour of the first respondent allowing recovery of possession, according to the learned counsel. The fact that there was such an agreement pursuant to delivery ordered by the court is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. No circumstance has been brought to my notice that irrespective of such agreement entered into between the parties, still, the appellants are entitled to impeach the validity of the decree by way of second appeal. There is nothing to indicate that the R.S.A No.1193 OF 2009 - 2 - agreement has been executed not voluntarily on the free will of the appellants to give a quietus to the whole controversy. When that be so, I find, the second appeal requires no consideration by this court and, accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge vdv