IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 RSA.No. 736 of 2004() --------------------- AS. NO.42/1999 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM OS NO.367/1997 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHANGANACHERRY APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3, 5 & 6/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3, 5 & 6. ------------------------------------------ 1. SANKARANARAYANA PILLAI, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, KURICHY VILLAGE, ITHITHANAM MURI. 2. GOURI AMMA, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, KURICHY VILLAGE, ITHITHANAM MURI. 3. MANILAL, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, KURICHY VILLAGE ITHITHANAM MURI. 4. KARUNAKARAN, KANNAMTHARA HOUSE, KURICHY VILLAGE, ITHITHANAM MURI. 5. VALSALA, KANNAMTHARA HOUSE, KURICHI VILLAGE, ITHITHANAM MURI. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT & 4TH RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF & 4TH DEFENDANT: ------------------------- 1. P.S.CHACKO, S/O.XAVIER, GRACE HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY WEST VILLAGE, THURUTHY MURI. (*) 2. M.M.MADHAVA KURUP, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, KURICHI VILLAGE, ITHITHANAM MURI. (DELETED) (*)THE NAME OF R2 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 18.3.2005 ON IA NO.504/2005. ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE FOR R1 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.S.A.No.736 of 2004 & I.A.No.1142 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT Heard both sides. Judgment dated 07.04.2010 is re-called. 2. Respondent No.2 has already been deleted from the array of parties. 3. Respondent No.1 sued for a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain appellants and respondent No.2 from trespassing into the suit property. Appellants and respondent No.2 claimed right of access through the said property. Trial court dismissed the suit against which respondent No.1 preferred A.S. No.42 of 1999. First appellate court reversing judgment decree of trial court granted decree in favour of respondent No.1 whereby appellants and respondent No.2 were restrained from trespassing into any portion of the suit property, committing waste or using any portion of the said property as a pathway. That judgment and decree are under challenge at the instance of defendant Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6. Defendant No.4 is impleaded in the appeal as respondent No.2. 4. Now matter has been settled between appellants and respondent No.1 outside Court. As per the settlement respondent No.1 has agreed to RSA No.736/2004 & I.A.No.1142/2010 2 provide a pathway having width of 8.5 feet along the eastern side of suit property extending north-south for access to the appellants, respondent No.2, persons claiming under him and the neighbours. It is accordingly that appellants and respondent No.1 have filed I.A. No.1142 of 2010. That application is accompanied by an agreement entered into between the said parties. 5. I have heard counsel on both sides. In the circumstances stated in the application compromise is accepted and recorded. Application is allowed. In the result Second Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise. Respondent No.1 will provide a way having width of 8.5 feet along eastern side of the suit property extending north-south to facilitate the appellants, respondent No.2, persons claiming under him and the neighbours to gain access to their property and take tempo van through the said way. The compromise will form part of the decree of this Court. Interlocutory Application No.1286 of 2004 shall stand dismissed and I.A.No.904 of 2010 shall stand closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks