High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-02-14Disposed of by settlement; no further contest; ...

K. K. Ashok Kumar and Nalini v. M. Gopinathan (RFA Nos. 199/2019 and 179/2021; OS 169/2012 and OS 17/2017, Additional Sub Court, Palakkad, Kerala)

Case / Petition Number:RFA 199/2019; RFA 179/2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. Somarajan
Judgment Date: 2022-02-14
Court Decision / Holding: The matter is settled between the parties; the mediation report is received. Hence, the Regular First Appeals (RFA Nos. 199/2019 and 179/2021) are disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at by the parties. The settlement will form part of the judgment and decree. The court shall refund the entire court fee paid by the appellants in view of the position settled, citing the authority in M. C. Subramaniam (2021) 2 KHC 62. The appeals are disposed of without further costs. The terms include surrender of possession by the appellants and the respondent’s forgoing of the decree for arrears, along with a payment of Rs. 2,00,000 to the appellants; the settlement to be recorded in the judgment.
Final Disposition: Disposed of by settlement; no further contest; settlement to be recorded in the judgment; court fees refunded; no costs awarded against either party; appeals dismissed without further harassment or costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K. K. Ashok Kumar
Nalini

Respondents

M. Gopinathan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. B. Krishnan
• P. M. Neelakandan
• P. Subramanyan
• Sabu George
• Manu Vyasan Peter

Counsels for Respondents

• Binu Vasudevan
• R. Manikantan

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, before Justice P. Somarajan, hears Regular First Appeals (RFA Nos. 199/2019 and 179/2021) arising from two original suits in Palakkad: O.S. 169/2012 and O.S. 17/2017. The appellants are K. K. Ashok Kumar and Nalini; the respondent is M. Gopinathan. The matter was listed for hearing on 14 February 2022 along with connected matters. The mediation conducted at the Palakkad District Mediation Centre culminated in a settlement between the parties, with a mediation report filed and accepted by the court. Consequently, the appeals are disposed of in terms of the mediated settlement. The terms include: (i) the appellants will surrender possession of the plaint schedule property in O.S. 17/2017; (ii) the respondent will forgo the decree for arrears of rent and occupational charges and relinquish the decretal amounts including costs; (iii) the respondent will pay Rs. 2,00,000 to the appellants under the mediation terms; (iv) the entire court fee paid by the appellants will be refunded in light of the settled position. The settlement is to be recorded in the judgment and decree. The court cites a Kerala High Court/Madras High Court authority (M.C. Subramaniam) to support refunds. The order is a disposition of the appeals without further contest, with no costs. The matter thus ends by consent, avoiding further litigation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 89, CPCRule 24 of the Civil Procedure ADR Rules, 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants-applicants contend that the disputes between the parties arising out of O.S. 169/2012 and O.S. 17/2017 were referred to mediation by the High Court for an amicable resolution. They submit and consent to the mediated settlement, including surrender of possession of the subject property and waiver of arrears and costs as decreed. They seek recording of the settlement in the judgment/decree and refund of the entire court fee in light of the compromise, relying on the legal position settled by the Apex Court via a Kerala High Court decision (M.C. Subramaniam reference) that fees can be refunded when disputes are resolved through mediation and settlement. They acknowledge the document registered as Exhibit Al as genuine and valid and agree to the terms of the memorandum reflecting the settlement, including the Rs. 2,00,000 payment and timely possession surrender by 05/04/2022.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent supports the mediated settlement, agreeing to forgo the decree for arrears and to relinquish the decretal amounts, as per the terms of the memorandum. He also undertakes to pay Rs. 2,00,000 to the appellants and to bear costs in line with the settlement. The respondent’s stance is to resolve the dispute through mediation and to ensure that the settlement is recorded and implemented without protracted litigation, subject to the stipulated dates and conditions for possession surrender.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
JGH Court of Judicature at Madras rep. By its Registrar General v. M.C. Subramaniam and others	2021 (2) KHC 62	Positive	Cited as the authority for refund of court fees when disputes are settled by mediation; used to justify the refund and settlement-based disposition in the present case.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against K. K. Ashok Kumar and Nalini v. M. Gopinathan (RFA Nos. 199/2019 and 179/2021; OS 169/2012 and OS 17/2017, Additional Sub Court, Palakkad, Kerala) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM # PRESENT ## THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY 0F FEBRUARY 2022 / 25TH MAGHA, 1943 _RFA NO. 199 0F: 20±9 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12/10/2018 IN OS 169/2®12 0F ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, PALAKRAD ## APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFl=S: K . K . ASHOKKUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS S/0. KANTANKUTTY, SREENAGAR COLONY, KUNNATHURMEDU, KANNANUR AMSOM DESOM, PALAl(KAD-678 7®2 , NALINI AGED 48 YEARS W/O. K.K. ASHOKKUMAR, SREENAGAR COLONY, KUNNATHURMEDU, KANNANUR AMSOM DESOM, PALAKRAD-678 7®2. BY ADVS. P . 8 . KRISHNAN SRI . P . M . NEELAKANDAN SRI . P . 8 . SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER ## BESPONDENT/DEFENDANT : M . GOPINATl+AN , AGED 45 YEARS, S/O LATE SWAMINATHAN, PARUTHIKAD VEEDU, EDAYAR STREET, KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAl(KAD TALUK, PALAKRAD-678 ®01. BY ADVS. SRI . BINOY VASUDEVAN SRI . R . MANIKANTAN TI+IS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING 0N 14.02.2®22, ALONG WITH RFA.179/2®21, THE COURT 0N THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -:==.i:- [RFA Mos.199/2®19,179/2®21] 2 # IN THE HIGH COURT 0F KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN MONDAY, THE 14" DAY 0F FEBRUARY 2022 / 25TH MAGHA, 1943 RFA NO. 179 0F 2®21 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12/1®/2018 IN OS 17/2®17 0F: ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, PALAl(KAD ## APPELLANTS/DEFENDAI\lTS: K . K . ASOKKUMAR, S/O. KANTANKUTTY, AGED 59 YEARS NALINI, W/0.ASOKUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SREENAGAR COLONY, KUNNATHURMEDU, KUNNANUR AMSAM DESOM, PALAKRAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADV . SRI . P . 8 . KRISHNAN SRI . P . 8 . SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER ## RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF : M . GOPINATHAN S/0. LATE SETHUMADHAVAN,AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT PARUTHIKAD VEEDU, EDAYAR STREET, KOPPAM AMSAM, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING 0N 14.02.2®22, ALONG WITH RFA.199/2019, THE COURT 0N THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: [RFA Mos.199/2019,179/2®21] 3 ## urDGMENT The matter is settled between the parties, The mediation report is received. Hence, the appeal is disposed of in terms of settlement arrived at by the parties. The settl.ement will form part of the judgment and decree. Refund the entire court fee paid to both the appell.ants in view of the I.egal position settled by the Apex Court in #jgh Court of Judicature at Madras rep. By its Registrar General v. M.C. Subramaniam and others [2®21 (2) KHC 62]. Sd/. P . SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp 08088 rl . ,.cD '`Q 3l\L®L2_ Med.No.273/2021. ## District Mediation Centre, Palakkad. Dated.28.01.2022. From Dr.B.Kalam Pasha District Co-ordinator (Principal District Judge) District Mediation Centre, Palakkad. **==> picture [17 x 6] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** (i. **----- End of picture text -----** To The Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Kerala Kochi.682031 a Sir' Sub:-Mediation in R.F.A.No.199/2019 and R.F.A.No.179/2021 of the Hon'ble High Court at the District Mediation Centre, Palakkad report submitting ofreg. Ref:-Order dated 24.11.2021 in R.F.A.No.199/2019 and R.F.A.No.179/2021 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. ********* As per the reference cited above the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala referred R.F.A.No.199/2019 and R.F.A.No.179/2021 to the District Mediation Centre, Palakkad for mediation, directing the parties to mark their appearance before the District Mediation Centre, Palakkad. On appearance of both parties before the District Mediation Centre, Palakkad. Advocate Sri.P.Rajesh was appointed as the mediator in the above case. On conducting mediation sitting on 01.12.2021, 15.12.2021, 05.01.2022, 07.01.2022, and 19.01.2022 mediator has filed report to the effect that the matter is settled in mediation. The mediation report is enclosed herewith for kind information and necessary action. ## Yours f aithfully DisfiEtffi=6FalfiaI6r-(Principal District Judge) -:fr. .,` rl rl ## BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI ## R.F.A.199/2019 **==> picture [439 x 520] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** 1.K.K.Ashok Kumar, S/o.Kandankutty, Sree Nagar Colony, Kunnathurmedu, Palakkad. Appellants 2.Nalini, W/o.K.K.Ashok Kumar, Sree Nagar Colony, Kunnathurmedu, Palakkad. Gopinathan, S/o.late Sethumadhavan, Paruthikkad Veedu, Edayar Street, Respondent Koppam amsom, Palakkad. R.F.A. 1.K.K.Ashok Kumar, S/o.Kandankutty, Sree Nagar Colony, Kunnathurmedu, Palakkad. Appellants 2.Nalini, W/o.K.K.Ashok Kumar, Sree Nagar Colony, Kunnathurmedu,, Palakkad. Gopinathan, S/o.late Sethumadhavan, Paruthikkad Veedu, Edayar Street, Respondent Koppam amsom, Palakkad. The mediation agreement signed bv the aDDellants and res ondents in the above matters. **----- End of picture text -----** 2 ## The memorandum Palakkad mediation centre. The memorandum of agreement u/s.89 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w. rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Alternative Disputes Resolution Rules 2008 executed by the appellants/respondents in the above matter at Palakkad Mediation centre. The parties above named beg to submit as follows:- 1. The aforesaid cases were referred to mediation by the Honourable High Court of Kerala for resolving the dispute between the parties in the course of mediation, the appellants and the respondent have resolved the dispute and have agreed to the following terms and conditions 1.The appellants in the respondents agreec, to accept the judgment and decree of the lower court of the Additional Sub Court, Palakkad dated 12/10/2018 in O.S.169/2012 and O.S.17/2017 and the appellants have agreed to surrender possession of the plaint schedule property in O.S.17/2017 in the file of Additional Sub Court, Palakkad to the respondent. u u 2. The respondent herein agreed to forgo the decree in respect of arrears of rent and occupational charges directed to be paid by the interest and costs granted by lower court directed to be paid by the lst appellant to the respondent herein he relinquishes the plaint. 3. The appellants further agrees thatthe document executed bythem as registered document No.2488/2005 at Palakkad S.R.O marked as ./ r\ ill exhibit Al is genuine, true and valid. That considering the hardship and in terms of the compromise the respondent agree to pay Rs.2,00,000/(rupees two lakhs only) to the appellants herein and the amounts is agreed to be paid only in terms of the mediation. The respondent herein relinquish to the compensatory cost and cost awarded by the lower court in his favour as per the decree in O.S.169/2012. That the appellants were granted time ti!! 05,/04/2022 to surrender possession of the property and the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(rupees two lakhs only) shall be given by the respondent to the appellants on or before 05/04/2022 but only at the time of surrendering Possession of the property by the appellants to the respondent rlerein. In case the appellants fail to surrender possession of the property on or before 05/04/2022 the respondent is entitled to proceed with the execution proceedings initiated before the additional Sub Court, Palakkad as E.P.53/2019 and recover possession of the property from the respondents and also the money portion of the decree including cost and compensatory cost, arrears of rent etc., from the appellants herein and also in case the appellants fails to surrender vacant possession on or before 05/04/2022, they will not be entitled for receive the aforesaid Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs only) from the respondent herein. u The entire court fee paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them. It is hereby agreed that the above cases may be disposed of as per the law the above agreement may be recorded and the appeals R.F.A.199/2019 and R.F.A179/2021 may be dismissed without cost. The parties hereto agrees to bear cost by themselves. The parties herein have signed this agreement voluntarily. Appellants D£`ted this the 19th day of January, 2022 Respondent u **==> picture [100 x 20] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** 2.N [o,ul-I] **----- End of picture text -----** Counsel for the appellants Counsel for the respondent `f-- rl Eii ## Verification We, 1).K.K.Ashok Kumar, S/o.Kandankutty, Sreenagar Colony, Kunnathurmedu, Kunnanur amsom, Palakkad, 2.Nalini, W/o.K.K.Ashok Kumar, Sree Nagar Colony, Sree Nagar Colony, Kunnathurmedu, Kunnanur amsom, Palakkad the appellants in R.F.A.199/2019 and R.F.A.179/2021 and Gopinathan, S/o.late Sethumadhavan residing at Parithikkad Veedu, Edayar Street, Pa!akkad Taluk the respondent in. R.F.A. 199/2019 and R.F.A.179/2021 do hel-eby declare that all the statements made above are true and correct tot the best of our knowledge information and belief. Appellants Respondent 1.ha. 2: ndgivrf_ •f\ |||KERALA STATE MRI)IATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE|KERALA STATE MRI)IATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE|KERALA STATE MRI)IATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE|KERALA STATE MRI)IATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE| |---|---|---|---|---|---| ||||rilGH cOuRT MEDIATION CENTRE ; I]ISTRlcT||| ||||TO BE RETURNED TO 'IHE NODAL OFFICI}R||| ||||T0 BE COPIF,D T() THF, REFHRRING J.UDGE||| |f f i rfi<if. !S|f f i rfi<if. !S||||| ||1|CaseNunber„.ft..I.A„...\.1.:1.\Lfi|||| ||2.|Didthecaseultimatelysettle pr\e QA l\J\ ll. cJ ]3 \L|jL\ Y:(::/|||| ||3.|If yes,|||| |||a) Date of settlement..|a) Date of settlement..||| |||b) Has theagreementbeenreduced intowriting?|b) Has theagreementbeenreduced intowriting? JEEii||| |||c) Haveanyrelatedc;sesbeensettledasaresult?|c) Haveanyrelatedc;sesbeensettledasaresult?||| |.^|||||| ||||Plcase list case numbers:||| |||If no,whatwastheprimaryreasonfornon-settlonont:|||| ||Case was NOT mediated because:||||| |||a). I Gas.ewas deemed unfit formediation. Why unfit?|||| |||b) I Oneormore necessary parties never appeared:|b) I Oneormore necessary parties never appeared:||| ||||I plintifl I ~D'efendant|I Both|| |||c I oneormorenedessaryparties failer]to appearforafollow-up|c I oneormorenedessaryparties failer]to appearforafollow-up||| ||||I plintiff i r)efendant|I Both|| |||d) I Oneor moreparties could notchtalri authority to negotiate|d) I Oneor moreparties could notchtalri authority to negotiate||| |Eiil|||I plalnff I Defendant||| ||Case Media.te.d but:||||| |||e) One or more parties appeared but refused to participate in mediation|e) One or more parties appeared but refused to participate in mediation||| ||||plalndff. I Defiindaht|I Both|| |||0 Could not reach agreement on tens|0 Could not reach agreement on tens||| |||Dates:|||| |||a) Retumoffiletocourt: Cf a.\§\\}+ul|a) Retumoffiletocourt: Cf a.\§\\}+ul||| |||b) Parties appearance before the|b) Parties appearance before the||| ||Noclal Officer's Name : +.. .G\ .... T\.a.nft*Th||||| |||Signature Gl&NIh|||Date. c|ai i Q| )tL . , |