IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 RSA.No. 336 of 2006() --------------------- AS.143/1998 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA OS.132/1995 of MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------ GEETHA KUMARI, MURALI BHAVAN FROM THUNDIL PEROORKARAZHMA MURI, THAMARAKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------- 1. SURENDRA KURUP, SURESH NIVAS, VEDARA PLAVU MURI, THAMARAKULAM VILLAGE. 2. SUBASH OF -DO- -DO-. 3. SARASWATHI AMMA, PURATHUTTU VEEDU, MANJINIKKARA, OMALLUR. 4. KRISHNA KUMAR R. NAIR, THANAYIL HOUSE, KAITHA NORTH,KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE MAVELIKKARA. ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM FOR R1 TO R4 SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN FOR R1 TO R4 SRI.D.SAJEEV FOR R.1 & R4 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.S.A.No.336 of 2006 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT The Second Appeal arises from judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge-I, Mavelikkara in A.S.No.143 of 1998 which arose from the judgment and decree of learned Munsiff, Mavelikkara in O.S.No.132 of 1995. Appellant sought decree for injunction against the respondents alleging that respondents attempted to trespass into the suit property. Respondents resisted the suit and made a counter claim that they have a right of way through the suit property. Trial court dismissed the suit and allowed the counter claim. That was challenged in the first appellate court. Respondents preferred a cross objection as well. First appellate court dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross objection. Hence the Second Appeal. 2. Parties to this Second Appeal have filed I.A.No.3037 of 2009 settling the disputes outside the court and requesting that a decree may be passed in terms of the compromise. RSA No.336/2006 2 Accordingly, the compromise is accepted and recorded. This appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise (vide I.A.No.3037 of 2009). The compromise shall form part of the decree of this Court. No cost. I.A.No.920 of 2006 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks