IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 RSA.No. 454 of 2009() --------------------- AS.39/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM OS.495/1995 of I ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------- M.T.JOLLY, AGED 82 YEARS, SON OF LATE MANAYATHARA THOMAS, EX-SERVICE MAN, MANAYATHARA HOUSE, THUTHIYOOR ROAD, KAKKANAD KARA, VAZHAKALA VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN AND DAUGHTER ANNA PANANGADAN,AGED 51,R/AT PANANGADAN HOUSE, THUTHIYOOR ROAD, KAKKANAD KARA, VAZHAKALA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------- MARY, D/O.M.T.MAMMEN, AGED 49 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, RUBY MAMMEN, NOW RESIDING AT 27/4312-E, A/1PULLIMAKKAL BUILDINGS, APPOOS RESIDENCY, CHAKOL COLONY, PERUMANOOR, COCHIN-682 015. ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J ........................................... RSA No.454 of 2011 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT Appellant is the defendant in O.S.495 of 1995 on the file of Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. An exparte decree was passed in favour of the respondent, plaintiff granting recovery of possession of plot B1 and B3 marked in Ext.C1(a) plan. Though appellant challenged the decree before District Court, Ernakulam in A.S.39 of 2003, on dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the appeal was dismissed. Second appeal is filed challenging the decree. 2. I.A.2086 of 2011 is filed under Rule 3 of Order XXIII of Code of Civil Procedure to record the compromise. I.A.2198 of 2011 is filed for permission to enter into the compromise as a guardian is appointed to represent the appellant. In view of the affidavit filed by the counsel, I.A.2198 of 2011 is allowed and the guardian is permitted to enter into a compromise. 3. The guardian of the appellant on behalf of the appellant, RSA 454/2009 2 respondent and their respective counsel have signed in I.A.2086 of 2011. The compromise petition show that entire disputes were settled in between the appellant and the respondent. Hence the petition is allowed. Compromise is recorded as sought for in I.A.2086 of 2011. 4. In view of the compromise recorded in I.A.2086 of 2011, appeal is allowed. The decree in O.S.495 of 1995 on the file of Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam is set aside. O.S.495 of 1995 stands dismissed. Compromise petition will form part of the decree. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk RSA 454/2009 3