IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 OP(C).No. 278 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.445/2001 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ THANKAMMA, AGED 75 YEARS, W/O.LATE KRISHNAN NAIR, KARAVATHUMADATHIL, ARAKKUZHA VILLAGE, PANDAPPILLIKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.R.SUDHA SMT.TEENA CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN NAIR, KARAVATHUMADATHIL, ARAKKUZHA VILLAGE, PANDAPPILLIKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA 686 672. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.278 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT As the averments in this petition go, petitioner in her old age and on the belief that her son would look after her until death, executed a settlement deed in favour of the son - respondent herein - in respect of her property. But things did not go well as she expected. Petitioner states that she was even assaulted by the respondent and in respect of which she had to prefer a complaint to the local police and ultimately she was compelled to execute Ext.P2, document cancelling the settlement deed and then filed a suit for injunction to restrain respondent from trespassing into the suit property. Respondent raised a counter claim based on the settlement deed. Then there was a compromise decree according to the petitioner, on condition that respondent would look after petitioner during the rest of her life. But that condition was not complied and harassment continued. Petitioner has approached this court to invoke its power under Article 227 of the Constitution to declare that Ext.P3, compromise decree is null and void and that Ext.P2, cancellation deed is valid. Learned counsel has made a fervent plea for some relief in favour of petitioner pointing out her pathetic condition. I am afraid, this court cannot interfere in the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution at the first instance. If the compromise decree is OP(C)No.278/2010 2 not valid for any reason whatsoever as contended by petitioner or was conditional and she wants to sustain Ext.P2, cancellation deed she has to approach the appropriate forum as provided under law and seek appropriate relief. With the above observation this petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks