IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 AS.No. 226 of 1996() -------------------- OS.110/1992 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT(S): DEFENDANTS 2, 4 AND 5: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. YASHODA 2. SRIDHARAN 3. MOHINI NO.1 IS DAUGHTER OF NARAYANAN. NO.2 IS SON OF NARAYANAN. NO.3 IS WIFE OF LATE KARUNAKARAN. NO.1 IS RESIDING AT KALUGUNDI OF SAMPAJE VILLAGE AND POST, KARNATAKA STATE. NOS.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT KARADKA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.G.GOWRI SHANKAR RAI RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS 1 AND 6: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PONNAMMA 2. SUBRAMANYA 3. CHANDRAVATHI 4. PUSHPA 5. JANAKI Kss ..2/- ..2...... A.S.NO.226/1996 6. NALINI 7. CHANDRA 8. UNNAMED FEMALE CHILD, REPRESENTED BY SRI.M.BALAGOPALAN, ADVOCATE, COURT GUARDIAN. NOS.1 AND 5 ARE CHILDREN OF BELTHAMMA. NOS.2 TO 4 ARE CHILDREN OF NO.1: PONNAMMA. NO.6 IS THE DAUGHTER OF NO.5: JANAKI. NOS.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT WECHIMPADPU OF KARADKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. MULLERIA. NO.5 IS RESIDING AT KOTOOR OF MULIYAR VILLAGE, P.O.KOTOOR. NO.6 IS RESIDING AT KATUKUKKE OF PERUVAI VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, (D.K.) KARNATAKA STATE. NO.7 IS SON OF BELTHAMMA, RESIDING AT KARIMBALAPPU OF KARADKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. MULLERIA. R1 TO R6 BY ADVS. MR.P.SHRIHARI, SMT.P.VANI. BY ADV. MR.SREELAL N.WARRIER,MEDIATOR THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.Ravindran, J. =============== I.A.No.547 of 2009 & A.S. No.226 of 1996 ================================ Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT This appeal arises from the preliminary decree for partition passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kasaragod in O.S.No.110 of 1992. The appellants are defendants 2, 4 and 5 and respondents 1 to 6 are the plaintiffs therein. Sri. Chandra, the first defendant in the suit and the seventh respondent in this appeal has not been heard of for the past two decades and he was set ex parte in the court below. The suit instituted by respondents 1 to 6 for partition and separate possession of two items of lands described in the A schedule to the plaint was decreed by the court below. As per the preliminary decree passed by the court below, they are entitled to 8 out of 10 shares. 2. The parties to this appeal have settled their differences and disputes out of court. The terms of the compromise have been reduced to writing and set out in I.A.No.547 of 2009 wherein the parties have prayed that the compromise may be recorded and a decree may be passed in terms thereof. As per the compromise arrived at between the parties, respondents 1 to 6 herein, the plaintiffs in the suit, have given up their claim over item No.2 of the plaint A schedule and agreed to limit their claim to item No.1 of the plaint A schedule, a parcel of land, 70 cents in extent, situated in R.S.No.122/1 of Adhur Village in Kasaragod IA 547/09 & AS 226/96 -: 2 :- Taluk. It is also stated that item No.2 of the plaint A schedule, a parcel of land, 5.11 acres in extent, situated in R.S. No.133/2 of Adhur Village, Kasaragod Taluk presently in the possession of the defendants shall vest in them and that the plaintiffs shall have no right over the said lands. The compromise also recites that item No.1 of the plaint A schedule will vest exclusively in the plaintiffs and they are at liberty to forthwith take possession of the same. 3. The fourth petitioner in this application who is the sixth defendant in the suit and the eighth respondent in the appeal, is the minor daughter of the third appellant. As per the decree passed by the court below, the plaintiffs have been found entitled to 8 out of 10 shares in two items of immovable properties having a total extent of 5.81 acres. As per the compromise arrived at between the parties, the plaintiffs have agreed to limit their claim to 70 cents of land described in item No.1 of the plaint A schedule and have given up their claim for item No.2 thereof. As the plaintiffs have limited their claim to a lesser extent of land than what they are entitled to under the preliminary decree, I am of the opinion that the compromise arrived at between the parties is beneficial to the interests of the minor fourth petitioner. 4. On going through the judgment under challenge and upon hearing the parties and on perusing the terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, I am satisfied that the compromise is not detrimental to the interests of the minor fourth petitioner. The IA 547/09 & AS 226/96 -: 3 :- compromise arrived at between the parties and set out in I.A.No.547 of 2009 is accordingly recorded, the decree and judgment passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kasaragod in O.S.No.110 of 1992 are set aside and a preliminary decree for partition is passed in terms of the compromise. A copy of the compromise petition shall be appended to the decree. The appeal is disposed of as above. The parties shall bear their respective costs. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 19/2