IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 RSA.No. 447 of 2010() --------------------- OS.91/1997 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM RFA.40/2004 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 /2nd plaintiff & legal rep. Of deceased 1st plaintiff : -------------------------------------------- 1. FRANCIS ANCHILA, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. PANTHOLIAN, VAREZHATHU VEEDU, THEKKUMBHAGOM MURI, THEKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. 2. BIJU, SON OF ALOYSIUS, VAREZHATHU VEEDU, THEKKUMBHAGOM MURI, THEKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. 3. REJI, SON OF ALOYSIUS, VAREZHATHU VEEDU, THEKKUMBHAGOM MURI, THEKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR SRI.SASIDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT AND ADDL. FIFTH RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOHN GABRIEL, AGED 622 YEARS, VARESHATHU VEEDU, THEKKUMBHAGOM MURI, THKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPLLY TALUK. * 2. WILSON, SON OF ALOYSIUS, VARESHATHU VEEDU, THEKKUMBHAGOM MURI, THKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPLLY TALUK. (deleted) R2 is deleted from party array at the risk of appellant as period order dt.29/9/2010 in I.A.2446/10 ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE FOR R1 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- R.S.A.NO.447 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 25th March, 2011 JUDGMENT Second plaintiff and legal heirs of deceased first plaintiff are the appellants. First respondent is the defendant in the suit. The suit was instituted for declaration, fixation of boundary and injunction. The respondent raised a counter claim for fixation of boundaries of plaint C schedule property. Learned Munsiff decreed the suit, declaring the title of the plaintiffs to the plaint B schedule well finding that the well forms part of AEIHG plot marked in Ext.C4 plan. The respondent was restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from taking water by using a motor. Plaintiffs RSA 447/10 2 was also restrained from installing motor. It was made clear that respondent is entitled to draw water without using a pump set. Counter claim was allowed and respondent was permitted to put up a permanent boundary through AE line in Ext.C4 plan. Defendant challenged the judgment before District court, Kollam in R.F.A.40/2004. Learned Additional District Judge partly allowed the appeal by permitting the appellants to draw water using motor pump set. Second appeal is filed challenging the judgment. 2. Notice was issued before admission to the respondents. Respondents appeared. As it was found that there is a chance of settlement on mediation, parties were directed to appear before the Kerala Mediation Centre and the appeal was referred to Mediation. In the RSA 447/10 3 mediation, appellants and respondents agreed for a settlement. They filed a joint agreement incorporating the settlement arrived at in the mediation. Report is forwarded from the Mediation Centre. Settlement is signed by both the appellants and the respondents. Appeal is disposed in terms of the settlement. Agreement of settlement dated 3/3/2011 forms part of the judgment. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.