IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 RSA.No. 602 of 2009() --------------------- AS.212/2007 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA OS.77/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/IST DEFENDANT: -------------------- K.R.GOPALAN UNNITHAN,S/O.RAMAN UNNITHAN, LAKSHMI VIHAR,MUTHUKATTUKARA MURI,PALAMEL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. K.R.PRABHAKARAN UNNITHAN,S/O.RAMAN UNNITHAN,ROHINI,FROM KALIMANGALATHU KIZHAKKATHIL, MUTHUKATTUKARA MURI,PALAMEL VILLAGE. (*)2. ARADH,24 YEARS,S/O.K.R.GOPALAN UNNITHAN, LAKSHMI VIHAR,MUTHUKATTUKARA MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE. (*)RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DELETED FROM ARRAY OF PARTIES VIDE ORDER DATED 4.11.2009 ON IA NO.2611/2009 ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN FOR R1 (CAVEATOR) SRI R. REJI SRI BIPIN B. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2009, ALONG WITH RSA NO. 622 OF 2009 AND WP(C) NO.18174 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.S.A.Nos.602 & 622 of 2009 & W.P.(C) No.18174 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard. The Second Appeals are admitted on the following substantial question of law: Is the first appellate court legally correct in finding notwithstanding Ext.B1 that appellant/plaintiff has title over only 16.04 ares merely for the reason that the resurvey records mentioned the extent as 16.04 ares when Ext.B1 conferred title on the appellant/plaintiff over 52 cents? Respondent No.2 is removed from party array as per order dated 4.11.2009 on I.A.Nos.2611 of 2009 and 2612 of 2009 respectively in the Second Appeals. Respondent No.1 appears through counsel. 2. The Second Appeals arise from common judgment and decree in A.S.Nos.212 of 2007 and 211 of 2009 respectively of the court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Mavelikkara confirming judgment and decree of learned Munsiff, Mavelikkara in O.S.Nos.77 of 2004 and 93 of 2004. When these appeals came up for hearing on 22.7.2009, it was suggested by counsel on both sides that the parties are prepared to settle the dispute and RSA Nos.602 & 622/2009 & W.P.(C) No.18174/2009 2 accordingly, considering the suggestions made by parties who were present in court in person, this Court passed an order issuing certain directions. The parties have settled the dispute and submitted a plan dated 13.8.2009 prepared by the Taluk Surveyor in R.S.ANo.602 of 2009. Based on that, parties have filed compromise petition in the appeals vide I.A.Nos.2615 of 2009 and 2614 of 2009. 3. As per the settlement reached between the parties, boundary of the properties of the appellant and respondent No.1 in these appeals is to be fixed along QKLMN line in the plan dated 13.8.2009 referred to above. It is agreed between the parties that consequent to the settlement between them, it is not necessary to pursue I.A.No.998 of 2004 in O.S.No.77 of 2004 of the court of learned Munsiff, Mavelikkara confirmed by judgment dated 30.1.2009 in C.M.A.No.39 of 2007 of the court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Mavelikkara and that the said judgment can be set aside by allowing W.P.(C) No.18174 of 2009. Compromise entered between the parties and referred to in I.A.Nos.2615 of 2009 and 2614 of 2009 is recorded and these appeals as well as Writ Petition are disposed of accordingly. RSA Nos.602 & 622/2009 & W.P.(C) No.18174/2009 3 Resultantly: i. R.S.A.Nos.602 of 2009 and 622 of 2009 are allowed in terms of the compromise. The boundary between the properties of appellant and respondent No.1 is fixed along QKLMN line in the plan dated 13.8.2009 prepared by the Taluk Surveyor, Mavelikkara and produced in R.S.A.No.602 of 2009. ii. The said plan shall form part of the decree in R.S.A.Nos.602 of 2009 and 622 of 2009. iii. W.P.(C) No.18174 of 2009 is allowed. Order dated 7.8.2007 on I.A.No.998 of 2004 in O.S.No.77 of 2004 of the court of learned Munsiff, Mavelikkara confirmed by judgment dated 30.1.2009 in C.M.A.No.39 of 2007 of the court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Mavelikkara is set aside. I.A.No.998 of 2004 in O.S.No.77 of 2004 will stand dismissed. iv. Parties shall suffer their cost through out in all proceeding. RSA Nos.602 & 622/2009 & W.P.(C) No.18174/2009 4 I.A.No.1331 of 2009 in R.S.A.No.602 of 2009 and I.A.No.1376 of 2009 in R.S.A.No.622 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks