Mayankutty v. Meethalepanayullathil Abdulla and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1944 RP NO. 497 OF 2021 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Ex.FA 43/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 18.02.2021 ``` ## **`REVIEW PETITIONER/ADDL.3RD RESPONDENT:`** ``` MAYANKUTTY,AGED 48 YEARS S/O. MOIDEEN, MEETHALEPANAYULLATHIL, PUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE, PONMERIPARAMBIL P.O, VILYAPALLI VIA, PIN 673 542 ``` ``` BY ADV ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT/1ST,ADDL.4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 MEETHALEPANAYULLATHIL ABDULLA,AGED 55 YEARS S/O. MOIDEEN, AGED 55 YEARS, CHETTIAMVEETIL, PARAMBIL DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, PIN 673 101` - `2 PREMANANDAN S/O. KUNHIKANNAN, RESIDING AT THIRUVATHIRA, CHORODE P.O, VADAKARA TALUK, PIN 673 101` - `3 KUNJAYISHA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS D/O. MOIDEEN, MEETHALEPANAYULLATHIL, PUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE, PONMERIPARAMBIL P.O, VILYAPALLI VIA, PIN 673 542` - `4 KHADEEJA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, W/O. MOIDEEN, MEETHALEPANAYULLATHIL, PUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE, PONMERIPARAMBIL P.O, VILYAPALLI VIA, PIN 673 542` ``` BY ADVS.B.KRISHNA MANI S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.) P.B.KRISHNAN P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SABU GEORGE MANU VYASAN PETER N.V.SANDHYA DHANUJA M.S ``` ## **`THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION`** ``` ON 11.02.2022, THE COURT ON 25.05.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:2:- ## MARY JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25[th] day of May, 2022 ## O R D E R This petition is filed by Additional 3[rd] respondent in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 seeking to review the judgment passed by this Court on 18.02.2021 which reads : “issues involved in O.S. No.48 of 2001 of Subordinate Judge’s Court, Vadakara has been amicably settled among the parties out of court and a Compromise Petition as I.A. No.01/2021 is filed, incorporating the terms of settlement, signed by the parties to the appeal and their respective counsel. In the above circumstances, Ex.F.A stands disposed of in terms of the Compromise Petition. Compromise Petition shall form part of the judgment. Half of the Court Fees shall be refunded to the appellant.” 2. The contentions in the review petition was that the 2[nd] respondent in Ex.F.A. died pending the appeal and accordingly his legal heirs were impleaded in the appeal as additional Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:3:- respondents 3 to 5 as per order passed on 25.01.2016 in I.A. No.2488/2015. 3. Ex.F.A. was filed by the 1[st] respondent challenging an order passed in I.A. No.1375/2009 in I.A. NO.7 of 2005 in O.S. No.48/2001, on the files of Sub-court, Vatakara. O.S. No.48/2001 was filed by the 2[nd] respondent against one Moideen, who is the father of the review petitioner, the 2[nd] respondent in Ex.F.A, seeking for a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale or in the alternative return of money paid as advance sale consideration with interest and costs. Sri.Moideen, father of the review petitioner was unable to contest the case properly due to his physical ailments and mental depressions suffered on account of that. Accordingly an ex parte decree was passed against him on 16.12.2004. 4. Thereafter the 1[st] respondent who was conversant with the facts of the case collected the entire records of the case, Vakalath and other materials from the other legal heirs of deceased Moideen including that of the review petitioner to proceed with the case. Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:4:- 5. The review petitioner was residing in a house situated in the property scheduled in O.S. No.48/2001, and the said factum was highlighted by him in I.A. No.1375/2009. The other legal heirs were confident that the 1[st] respondent would safeguard their interest by contesting O.S. No.48/2001 promptly and vigilantly. But to their utter dismay, the 1[st] respondent colluded with the 2[nd] respondent and fraudulently filed a petition in Ex.F.A stating that the entire issues have been compromised. Compromise petition was filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) and based on the terms incorporated, Ex.F.A was dismissed. The review petitioner at no point of time was aware of the facts stated in the compromise petition filed. Application was not filed to delete the names of respondents 2 to 5 in Ex.F.A, though stated so in the compromise petition. It was also wrongly stated in the compromise petition that the actual possession of the property had been handed over to the 1[st] respondent in the Ex.F.A without considering the interest of legal heirs of late Moideen, especially, the review petitioner. Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:5:- 6. In O.S.No.48/2001 filed on 13.06.2014 Mr.Premanandan and Mr.Moideen respectively were respondents 1 and 2. A third party to O.S.No.48/2001 has filed I.A.No.1375/2009 under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC claiming absolute ownership and exclusive possession over the property scheduled in O.S.No.48/2001. That property is now sought to be delivered from the possession of the 2[nd] respondent, who is the father of the review petitioner. It was not known to him that the 1[st] respondent had filed O.S.No.48/01 against the 2[nd] respondent seeking for a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale and an exparte decree was obtained in the suit against the 2[nd] respondent (Moideen). The allegation of the petitioner in I.A.No.1375/2009 was that by way of a gift deed bearing No.646/1974, executed by the 2[nd] respondent in his favour, he became the absolute owner of the property. The property came to the share of the 2[nd] respondent by a family partition deed of the year 1960. 7. I.A.No.7/05 was filed by the 1[st] respondent to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.48/2001 through court and to obtain Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:6:- delivery of possession of the property. In the meantime petitions were filed by Mr.Moideen to get the delay condoned and to set aside the exparte decree. A sufficient cause having not been made out by the 2[nd] respondent in the application filed to condone the delay, the same was dismissed and consequently application filed seeking to set aside the ex parte decree was also dismissed. 8. Appeal was preferred as Ex.FA.No.43/2014 challenging the above order. After passing of an order in I.A. No.1375 of 2009 and during the pendency of Ex.F.A. No.43/14, 2[nd] respondent died and his legal heirs were brought on record as additional respondents 3 to 5. During the pendency of Ex.F.A., the issues involved were amicably settled and I.A. No.1/2021 was filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. I.A. No.1/2021 was signed by the appellant, the 1[st] respondent and their counsel. It has been described in paragraph 3 of I.A. No.1/2021 as follows : “3. By the compromise reached, the Appellant agrees that the order dated 13-06-2014 passed by the court below in I.A.No.1375 of 2009 rejecting the claim petition is valid and proper, and that no grounds are made out for interference in the Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:7:- Appeal by this Hon’ble Court and that the above Appeal be dismissed. The Appellant has no objection in respondent No.1 obtaining record of delivery, if thought to be necessary and appropriate, by proceeding with I.A.No.7 of 2005, although, actual possession has been handed over to respondent No.1. Appellant agrees that Respondent No.1 has been put in possession pursuant to the decree. Presence of respondents 3 to 5 in the Appeal is unnecessary, they being not necessary parties to the compromise petition, and an application has been filed for their deletion from the party array and the same may be granted.” Therefore, it is evidenced from the above extract of the Compromise Petition filed that the appellant has tendered no objection to 1[st] respondent in obtaining record of delivery, if thought to be necessary and appropriate, despite the fact that by proceedings in I.A. No.7/2005, actual possession had already been handed over to the 1[st] respondent. The appellant has also conceded that the 1[st] respondent has already been put in possession of the plaint schedule property pursuant to the decree. It was recorded that respondents 3 to 5 being unnecessary parties in the appeal, their junction in the compromise is unnecessary. Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:8:- 9. Under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, the court shall record a compromise so far as it relates to the parties to the Suit and whether the subject matter of compromise is the same as that of the Suit. According to Sri.Sethumadhavan, the learned counsel for the review petitioner, additional respondents 3 to 5 were brought on record in Ex.F.A pursuant to the death of the original 2[nd] respondent and in the compromise petition filed before the Court the appellant and the 1[st] respondent alone being signed, this Court ought not to have passed a judgment as the one under challenge. 2[nd] respondent was a necessary party and on his demise, his children having been stepped into his shoes as his legal heirs were brought on record as additional respondents 3 to 5. According to him, though in the compromise petition it has been stated that additional respondents 3 to 5 are not necessary parties and measures to delete them from the array of the respondents, would be taken, nothing has been done. At the relevant time when I.A. No.1 of 2021 incorporating the terms of compromise was filed before the Court, additional respondents 3 to 5 being retained as parties therein, they ought to have been Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:9:- signatories thereto. Signatures having not been affixed in the compromise petition by additional respondents 3 to 5, it will not be legal within the meaning of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC and therefore is void. The learned counsel urged that a compromise filed without signature of all parties affixed thereon, ought not to have been recorded by the Court. 10. It has been held in Sh.Krishna Mohan Singh v. Sri.Chand Gupta [AIR 1993 Del 365] that compromise can be enforced only against contested parties who has signed the compromise. Therefore, it is clear that compromise petition can be signed by the contesting parties to a proceedings and the only consequence in the context was that its enforceability will be confined against the parties who are signatories thereto. The dictum proceeds to say that evenif uncontested parties sign it, it cannot be enforced against them, being unnecessary parties. Therefore, it follows that affixture of signature can only be a formality as far as uncontesting parties are concerned. 11. Now the question comes whether additional respondents 3 to 5 are necessary parties to the proceedings Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:10:- where compromise is recorded and a judgment is passed on it’s basis in Ex.F.A. As already stated, in the Original Suit filed as O.S. No. 48 of 2001, Mr.Moideen, who is the 2[nd] respondent in the proceedings on hand was a necessary party. But, he did not contest the suit and therefore a judgment and a decree were caused to be passed ex parte against him. Applications were filed by him much later to the passing of the above, seeking to condone the inordinate delay and to get the ex parte decree and judgment set aside, but the delay having been sought to be condoned without any convincing reasons, the petition filed for the purpose was dismissed and that also led to the dismissal of the application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. 12. Applications though filed seeking to restore those back to file, for failure of the 2[nd] respondent to prosecute, those were also dismissed. Thereupon, the decree holder approached the court seeking to execute the ex parte decree. As per the ex parte judgment and decree the 1[st] respondent was entitled to get possession of the plaint schedule property. While the execution proceedings were on its way, one Mr.Meethalepanayullathil Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:11:- Abdulla filed a claim petition as I.A No.1375/2009 contending that the plaint schedule property was gifted to him by the 2[nd] respondent. It was dismissed by the court for his failure to prove execution of the gift deed in his favour. The said order was challenged in Ex.F.A. No. 43 of 2014 and during it’s pendency that the parties arrived at terms of settlement and I.A No.01/2021 was filed. The 2[nd] respondent died during the pendency of the appeal and therefore, his legal heirs were brought on record as additional respondents 3 to 5. 13. This is a case wherein Mr. Moideen (2[nd] respondent) remained ex parte in the original proceedings and therefore, the 1[st] respondent obtained a decree in his favour. 14. Though the terms of the compromise would speak that the names of additional respondents 3 to 5 would be deleted from the array of the respondents, measures were not found taken. Additional respondents were neither aware of nor made known of the settlement of issues and the consequent drafting of the compromise petition. Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:12:- 15. It is contended by the learned counsel that the original defendant, in O.S.No.48/2001, Sri.Moideen being disabled physically and mentally, his elder son Abdulla, the appellant in Ex.F.A., was attending the proceedings on his behalf. In the compromise petition, the contentions of the 2[nd] respondent have been stated as given up. The 2[nd] respondent was survived by legal heirs other than Mr.Abdulla and therefore it is legally impermissible to give up the contentions of other legal heirs. In the case on hand, absolutely no materials are available to show that he has been authorised to do so by others. According to him, claim petition filed by Mr.Mayankutty, one of the legal heirs of the 2[nd] respondent has been separately adjudicated, but claims of additional respondents 3 to 5 are yet to be adjudicated. According to him, the claims of legal heirs other than Mr.Mayankutty ought to have been settled prior to entering into the compromise and signatures of them ought to have been obtained in the compromise petition to make it legal and enforceable. According to him, Additional respondents 3 to 5 having been impleaded, in the Ex.F.A, claims if any, they have Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:13:- over the plaint schedule property ought to have been adjudicated and settled. An argument was also advanced to the effect that Order XXIII prevents compromise at the stage of execution. Lastly and finally it was contended that instead of filing a compromise petition, the appellant could have withdrawn from prosecuting the appeal. 16. The case has a chequered history and it is essential to be discussed with in the backdrop of the arguments advanced as above. An agreement was executed among the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents on 27.03.2000 for sale of 1.65 acres of property in Sy. No.76/4 (R.S.23/2) of Kottappady Village, Badagara Taluk for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/was received by the defendant from the plaintiff as advance sale consideration. O.S. No.48/2001 was filed by Sri. Premanandan at District Court, Vatakara seeking for a decree for Specific performance. The defendant failed to contest the suit and thereupon was declared ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on 28.10.2003. Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:14:- 17. I.A. No.116/2004 was filed by the defendant to set aside the ex parte decree and judgment. It was allowed and the ex parte decree was set aside. Due to failure of the defendant to attend and contest, the suit was again decreed ex parte on 16.11.2004. Two month’s time was granted to the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration and he deposited the amount in time. I.A.No.07/2005 was filed by the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed and to obtain delivery of the property. I.A.No.58/2005 was filed by the defendant to get the ex parte decree set aside. It was dismissed on 18.08.2005 for nonprosecution. But the order of dismissal was not assailed in appeal. Therefore, the defendant was directed on 25.08.2005 to execute the sale deed. Draft sale deed was filed by the plaintiff and got approved. On 03.03.2006 sale deed was executed by the court and delivery of the property was ordered on 29.03.2006. On 19.09.2007, delivery of possession was obstructed by the children of the defendant/Judgment Debtor. Sri.Mayankutty, son of the defendant filed I.A.No.1228/2007 under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC on 17/10/2007 before the court, Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:15:- setting up a claim over the property on the strength of a gift given orally by the 2[nd] defendant to him. 2[nd] defendant was the second respondent in the above I.A. After holding enquiry in the I.A, it was dismissed on 06.11.2009 for failure of Sri.Mayankutty to establish the Oral Gift. Challenging that order Sri.Mayankutty preferred appeal as Ex.F.A No.125/2009 before this Court. The Division Bench which considered the Ex.F.A.No.125/2009 dismissed it by its judgment dated 15.12.2009. Thus the decree in O.S.No.48/2001 has become final. In the meantime, suppressing the factum of dismissal of I.A No.58/2005, defendant filed I.A.Nos.1228/2007, 1291/2009 and 1290/2009 under Order IX Rule 13 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 16.11.2007. Those I.As were dismissed for default on 25.03.2011. I.A.No.1486/2011 and I.A.No.1487/2011 filed respectively to condone the delay and to restore I.A.Nos.1290/2009 and 1291/2009, were also dismissed on 11.04.2012. 18. In the meantime, Mr.Abdulla, another son of 2[nd] defendant Moideen filed I.A.No.1375/2009 in I.A.No.7/2005 Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:16:- claiming right over the plaint schedule property on the basis of a gift deed executed and registered as 646/1974 of SRO, Villiappally dated 13.05.1974. Counter statement was filed by the defendant in that on 27.09.2010. I.A was dismissed by the court on 13.06.2014, as Sri.Abdulla failed to prove the execution of the gift deed. Sri.Abdulla has raised a claim in the petition that Sri.Mayankutty, his brother was permitted by the 2[nd] respondent to put up a dwelling house in the property, which was also adjudicated and dismissed. 19. Against the order of dismissal of I.A No.1375/2009, the present Ex.F.A was filed wherein the 1[st] respondent was Sri.Premanandan and the 2[nd] defendant was Sri.Moideen. During pendency of the appeal, Sri.Moideen died on 08.08.2014 and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 5. 3[rd] respondent is Sri.Mayankutty, 4[th] respondent is Kunjayisha (Daughter) and 5[th] respondent is Khadeeja (Wife). Since decree in O.S.No.48/2001 and the one sought to be executed was passed without contest from Mr.Moideen, the sole defendant therein, his legal heirs are bound by the decree. Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:17:- 20. Issues involved in Ex.F.A.No.43/2014 was settled as compromised by the appellant and respondent No.1. Pursuant to that I.A.No.01/2021 was filed on 18.02.2021. In the Interlocutory Application, it was stated that steps will be taken to remove additional respondents 3 to 5 from the array of the respondents. On 06.12.2021, order was passed in I.A.No.07/2005, whereby the delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property on 15.12.2021 with the assistance of the police and compliance was directed to be reported on 17.12.2021. Against the same, Kunjayisha, daughter of deceased Moideen filed OP(C) No.2532/2021 seeking to defer the delivery of possession of property until receipt of copy of the order dated 06.12.2021. On 07.12.2021, interim order was passed in OP(C) No.2532/2021 staying the delivery for two weeks. On 22.12.2021, OP(C) was disposed of recording that certified copy applied was delivered. 21. In I.A.No.07/2015, Kunjayisha filed a counter on 12.10.2021 stating that her father Moideen was mentally unsound, an aspect which have never been put forward by Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:18:- anyone else. Moideen had conducted the case on his own and had also filed various petitions in the case. In the claim petitions already filed by his legal heirs, he was never projected as mentally ailed. 22. In the meantime, R.P.I.A. No.01/2021 was filed in R.P. I.A No.1290/2009 seeking to restore the latter. I.A.No.01/2021 was also filed in R.P I.A.No.1290/2009 seeking to condone the delay of 3197 days occurred in filing R.P.I.A.No.01/2021, by Mr.Mayankutty, S/o.Moideen. He also filed R.P I.A.No.01/2021 in I.A.No.1291/2009 seeking to restore I.A.No.1291/2009 and I.A.No.01/2021 in I.A.No.1291/2009 seeking to condone the delay of 3197 days in filing R.P I.A.No.01/2021 in I.A.No.1291/2009. On 06.12.2021, all the four Interlocutory Applications were dismissed by a well considered order, wherein the court below has elaborately discussed the history of the case and the tactics adopted by Mr.Mayankutty in the matter. All the four I.As were dismissed with Rs.25,000/- as costs and on the very same day an order for delivery of the property was issued. Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:19:- 23. By document No.570/2021 dated 22.04.2021 of SRO, Thiruvallur, the plaintiff/decree holder transferred the property to one Mr.K.Valasrajan. He got himself impleaded as petitioner in the case by filing I.A.No.03/2021 in I.A.No.07/2005 in O.S.No.48/2001. 24. In the compromise petition filed as I.A.No.01/2021, the claims in I.A. put forward by Mr.Abdulla stands compromised and on its basis, a compromise decree was also passed. Mr.Mayankutty and other legal representatives of the defendant being bound by the decree under Section 50 CPC, have no right to obstruct. They were not made parties to the compromise, since it would not affect their rights in the property in any manner. Claims had already been made by them in various legal proceedings and adjudication of those culminated in their disfavour. On 04.01.2022, OP(C).No.6/2022 was filed by Sri.Mayankutty, to stall delivery. O.P(C) was disposed of on 04.01.2022, giving three weeks’ time to prefer appeal against. Accordingly, on 14.01.2022, RP No.104/2022 was filed by Mr.Valsarajan, the assignee decree holder requesting to recall Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:20:- judgment passed in OP(C) No.06/2022, pointing out that material facts are suppressed. `25.` On 01.02.2022, extension of time was sought but was rejected by the court. R.P No.104/2022 was closed and Annexure-E common order was passed in the four Interlocutory Applications referred to, dismissing those with a cost of Rs.25,000/-. This Court is convinced from the events described chronologically that parties to O.S No.48/2001 were none other than Sri.Premanandhan, the plaintiff and Sri.Moideen. The suit was not contested effectively by the 2[nd] defendant though several opportunities have been provided to him and availed and ultimately, the judgment in O.S. No. 48 of 2001 was passed, ex parte. 26. Therefore the position as on date was that as per the decree passed in O.S.No.48 of 2001, the respondent therein who is the 1[st] respondent is entitled to get the sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property executed in his favour. The 1[st] respondent was put in possession of the property in execution proceedings. Rival claims were raised against, but those were Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:21:- also dismissed. At that juncture the compromise was entered and the compromise petition was filed. Therefore additional respondents 3 to 5 had already fought the decree with their rival claims and all those were set at rest after adjudication. The compromise infact was entered among the appellant and respondent No.1 in order to save further delay in the matter of execution of the ex parte judgment and decree in its true spirit. Claims of the additional respondents, which were adjudicated and found against them and also reached finality cannot be raised again to unsettle everything. The 1[st] respondent has been fighting since 2004 even after obtaining a decree in his favour. He had already conveyed the property after obtaining the decree to some third party and the assignee is also struggling all throughout the years to get the benefits of the assignment enjoyed. The tactics to whittle down the enforcement of a decree already obtained years back have to be restrained. Additional respondents’ claim will not sustain. The real contest being between the appellant and the 1[st] respondent, they are free to Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:22:- compromise it without the juncture of additional respondents 3 to 5 who are not necessary parties. 27. In order to get rid off the difficulties resulting from the pendency of the appeal and to expedite the proceedings, terms of compromise have been entered into. The necessary parties to the compromise were none other than the appellant and respondent No.1. It is found from the compromise petition that the appellant and respondent No.1 and their respective counsel have affixed their signatures in I.A.01/2021. True that an application seeking to delete additional respondents 3 to 5 was not filed as agreed by the parties. In the context on hand and in the light of the various proceedings initiated by additional respondents 3 to 5 and finality arrived at in those against them, their juncture in the compromise is not required. The legal heirs of the 2[nd] respondent having raised their specific claims over the plaint schedule property and having been defeated in those, has no locus standi to say that 1[st] respondent is not the party entitled for possession of plaint schedule property. There is nothing to be enforced against additional respondents 3 to 5. Claim petition Review Petition No. 497 of 2021 in Ex.F.A. No.43 of 2014 -:23:- filed by Mr.Meethalepanayullathil Abdulla was dismissed and appeal on hand was preferred by him and during pendency that the issues have been compromised among the appellant and the 1[st] respondent, the real contestants in the claim petition. Additional respondents 3 to 5 have no role to play in the compromise arrived at. Therefore, their non-juncture in the compromise would not affect its legality in any manner. Therefore, the judgment assailed is not liable to be reviewed for the reason that the compromise petition which formed its basis was not signed by additional respondents 3 to 5 or that additional respondents 3 to 5 were not deleted from the array of respondents as agreed. Review Petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE. ttb