IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 MSA.NO. 1 OF 2010() ------------------------------- AS.133/1999 OF III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR IP.11/1997 OF I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S) – APPELLANTS – LRS OF R2: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SADAYAPPAN (DIED), S/O. NACHIMUTHU, KUNDOLIVEETIL, IIII/370/1, THRISSUR CHELAKOTTUKARA DESOM, THRISSUR. 2. ANSARAJESWARAY, W/O. SADAYAPPAN (LATE) DO. DO. DO. 3. MANIMEGHALA AGED 19 YEARS, D/O. DO. DO. DO. DO. 4. MANIVARNAN, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O. DO. DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S) – PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.1: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.J. JOHNY, S/O. PALLIPARAMBAN JOSEPH, KRISHNAPURAM, KALATHOUD, OLLUKKARA, THRISSUR. 2. RAMKUMAR, S/O. PALISSERY SAROJINI AMMA, KOTTAPPURAM THRISSUR. 3. OFFICIAL RECIEVER IN I.P.11/97 OF SUB COURT, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.P.V.SREENIVASAN FOR R1,R2. THIS MISC. SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 9.4.2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== M.S.A. No.1 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T This Second Appeal arises from judgment and decree of learned third Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Thrissur in A.S. No.133 of 1999 modifying the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Thrissur in I.P. No.11 of 1997. That was a petition filed by respondent No.2 claiming to be a creditor to declare respondent No.1 as insolvent. Trial court allowed the petition, declared respondent No.1 as insolvent and cancelled document No.1887 of 1997 of SRO, Ayyanthole executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 in the Insolvency Petition who is the predecessor- in-interest of appellants before me. Respondent No.2 in the Insolvency Petition filed appeal. Learned Additional District Judge while confirming the order declaring respondent No.1 as insolvent declared that the impugned document would be void to the extent of transfer of right of respondent No.1 in the suit property. That judgment and decree of the learned third Additional District Judge are under challenge in this Second Appeal at the instance of legal M.S.A. No.1 of 2010 & I.A. No.1005 of 2010 -: 2 :- representatives of deceased respondent No.2 in the Insolvency Petition. 2. Now the matter is settled between the parties outside Court. The compromise petition (I.A. No.1005 of 2010) is filed by the appellants and respondent Nos.1 and 2 (in the appeal). As per the terms of the compromise this appeal is to be allowed as prayed for. 3. I have heard counsel on both sides. Compromise petition is accepted and recorded. Resultantly this Appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise. Judgement/order under challenge are set aside and the Insolvency Petition will stand dismissed in terms of the compromise. Compromise shall form part of the decree of this Court. Registry shall inform the Sub Registrar concerned that the order declaring document No.1887 of 1997 of SRO, Ayyanthole as M.S.A. No.1 of 2010 & I.A. No.1005 of 2010 -: 3 :- void to the extent it concerned transfer of right of respondent No.1 has been set aside by this Court. Interlocutory Application No.1004 of 2010 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv