IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / -4TH JYAISTHA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 9 of 2003(F) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/01/2003 IN EA.49/2001,EP.49/96 IN OS.161/1990 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS IN E.A.NO.49/2001 ----------------------------------------------------- 1. T.G.SAMUELKUTTY, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, KALEEKKAL VEEDU, SASTHRITHOPPIL, CHALAKKODE WARD, PUNALUR VILLAGE.(DIED) 2. SARAMMA SAMUEL, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.T.G.SAMUELKUTTY, KALEEKKAL VEEDU, SASTHRITHOPPIL, CHALAKKODE WARD, PUNALUR VILLAGE. ADDL. 3. FEBA, D/O.SARAMMA SAMUEL, KALEEKKAL VEEDU, SASTHIRITHOPPIL, CHALAKKODE WARD, PUNALUR VILLAGE. ADDL. 4. EBIN, S/O.SARAMMA SAMUEL, KALEEKKAL VEEDU, SASTHIRITHOPPIL, CHALAKKODE WARD, PUNALUR VILLAGE. (Additional appellant Nos.3 and 4 are impleaded as per order dated 14.03.05 in I.A.No.769/05) BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ SRI.P.A.KUMARAN SRI.SURAJ.S SMT.VINEETHA B. RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS IN E.A.NO.49/2001 -------------------------------------------- 1. MOLAMMA JOYKUTTY, VADAKOTTUKALEELAZHIKATHU VEEDU, VILANGARA MURI, UMMANNOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. Mat.Appeal.No. 9 of 2003(F) - 2 - 2. JOYKUTTY, S/O.SCHARIAH, JERRY BHAVAN, VAZHAVILA VEEDU, VILAKKUDY, PATHANAPURAM. ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ********************** Mat.Appeal No.9 of 2003 ********************* Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This appeal is preferred by the claimants in E.A.No.49 of 2001 in E.P.No.49 of 1996 in O.S.No.161 of 1990. Their short prayer is that 26 cents of land in Sy.No.344/10 and 344/11 which form part of the attached party and which belong to them may be declared to be not liable to be proceeded against in execution of the decree. That petition was dismissed by the court below and the appeal is directed against that order passed in the E.A. 2. During the pendency of the petition, parties were referred to the Mediator and it is now reported that the parties have settled all their outstanding disputes. The decree holder/respondent admits and accepts that the property acquired by the claimants can now be exempted and he shall not proceed against the said property for executing the impugned decree. The agreement dated 04.06.2010 arrived at in mediation duly signed by the appellants and the 1st respondent and counter signed by their counsel has been produced. It is admitted that Mat.Appeal No.9 of 2003 2 an amount of Rs.1 lakh has been paid directly by the appellants to the 1st respondent and an amount of Rs.25,000/- is already lying in deposit before the court below. 3. We accept the agreement between the parties. We are satisfied that this appeal can, in these circumstances, be allowed. 4. In the result: a) The settlement dated 04.06.2010 arrived by the contestants in the presence of the Mediator is accepted; b) It is recorded that an amount of Rs.1 lakh has been paid directly by the appellants to the 1st respondent. It is further agreed that the amount of Rs.25,000/- lying in deposit before the court below can forthwith be released by the court below to the 1st respondent; c) This appeal is accordingly allowed. E.A.No.49 of 2001 shall hence stand allowed; d) The 26 cents of property belonging to the appellants shall not be proceeded against in execution of the decree in O.S.161 of 1990; e) The order of attachment over that property shall stand lifted; Mat.Appeal No.9 of 2003 3 f) The mediated settlement dated 04.06.2010 shall be appended to the appellate decree. g) The amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) lying in deposit shall forthwith be released to the decree holder, the 1st respondent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/