Suresh Kumar v. F. Fatheema Beegum

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. Somarajan
Judgment Date: 2022-02-14
Court Decision / Holding: The Regular First Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at by the parties. I.A.1/2022 is allowed. The compromise will form part of the judgment and decree. The Registry is directed to send back the LCR forthwith and to refund the entire court fee paid to the appellant in view of the settled legal position referenced by the Supreme Court in the Madras High Court decision cited in the record.
Final Disposition: Disposed of by compromise; settlement recorded and integrated into decree; LCR to be returned; court fees refunded.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Suresh Kumar

Respondents

F. Fatheema Beegum

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• N. K. Subramanian

Counsels for Respondents

• V. E. Abdul Gafoor
• A. Mohammed Savad

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Regular First Appeal arises from the decree in O.S. No. 8 of 2004 of the Additional Sub Court, Kollam, which directed realization of Rs 2,63,320 with 6% interest and costs. The appellant, Suresh Kumar, challenges that decree. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties arrived at a settlement termed "Othutheerpu Karar" dated 29 January 2022, reducing the entire decretal amount and interest to Rs 5,58,000. The settlement was reduced to Annexure A and produced before the court with a prayer to record the settlement and incorporate it into the decree. The affidavit of the appellant states that the entire settlement amount has been paid by online transfer to the respondent's account in Pemumpuzha Gramedharana Co-operative Bank, and that the respondent has admitted receipt as per clause 8 of the settlement. The respondent has also agreed to lift the order of attachment and to file an application for the return of the sale deed No. 4098/2002 of Kundara SRO in the appellant’s name, as per clause 7. The application seeks the court to pass a judgment recording the settlement and to make the settlement a part of the decree, in the interests of justice. The court records that the matter has been settled out of court and disposes of the appeal in terms of the compromise; I.A.1/2022 is allowed; the compromise will form part of the judgment and decree, with the registry directed to return LCR and refund the court fee to the appellant.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 151 CPCOrder 23 Rule 3 CPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant submits that a settlement, titled 'Othutheerpu Karar', was arrived at on 29 January 2022 after negotiations, reducing the decretal amount and interest to Rs 5,58,000. The parties produced Annexure A and seek a judgment recording the settlement and incorporating it into the decree. The entire settlement amount has been paid by online transfer to the respondent, who has admitted receipt, and agrees to lift the attachment and to return the sale deed No. 4098/2002 in the appellant’s name. The applicant seeks a decree reflecting the settlement so as to terminate the dispute efficiently and justly, in line with the court’s power under Section 151 CPC read with Order 23 Rule 3 CPC.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent supports the settlement, stipulating that she will not oppose the application, agrees to lift the attachment, and consents to the return of the sale deed No. 4098/2002. She confirms receipt of the settled amount and consents to incorporating the settlement into the final decree to avoid further litigation, and to file any necessary applications in the trial court to implement the settlement as per its terms.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Court of Judicature at Madras rep. by its Registrar General v. M.C. Subramaniam and others	[2021 (2) KHC 62]	Positive	Cited to support the propriety of recording a genuine settlement and incorporating it into the final decree as part of justice and finality in litigation.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# IN "E HIGH COuRT 0F KERALA AT ERl\lAKULAM # PRESENT THE HohlouRABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 25TH MAGMA, 1943 RFA NO, 813 0F 20®9 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28/®8/2009 IN OS 8/2®®4 0F ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM APPELLANT/DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.8/2004: SUREsll KUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, S/0 ICNATIUS, PONNANIl(KAL HOUSE, I(ANJIRAcODU MURI, MULAVANA VILLAGE. BY ADV . SRI . N . K . SUBRAMAI\lIAN ## RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF IN 0.S.NO.8/2®04: F. FATHIMA BEEGUM, S/0 AZANARUKUNJU, SHAJILA MANZIL, PUNUKKANN00RCHERRY, ELAMPALLO0R VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR SRI . A . MOHAMMED SAVAD THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 14.02.2022, THE COURT 0N THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RFA NO. 813 0F: 20®9 ## JUDGMENT The matter is settl.ed out of court between the parties. The appeal is disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at by the parties. I.A.1/2022 win stand al.lowed accordingly. The compromise will form part of the judgment and decree. Refund the entire court fee paid to the appel.i.ant in view of the legal position settled by the Apex Court in #jgh Coiirt of Judicature at Madras rep. By its Registrar General v. M.C. Subramaniam and others [2®21 (2) KHC 62]. The Registry is directed to send back LCR forthwith . Sd/. P . SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp **==> picture [109 x 25] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** • ffft%„ **----- End of picture text -----** 17r}r,-'=f 'l//I/LfA®r`/.#fd{U~:cr< '_-_ P A '`: .,_+ gaatl ## IN THE HIGH COUIIT OF JUDICATURE OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM **==> picture [157 x 15] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** i,A:ho / Of prfJrr2 **----- End of picture text -----** in R.F.A.No. 813 of2009 JZ) **==> picture [72 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** Suresh Kumar **----- End of picture text -----** Petitioner/Appellant **==> picture [104 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** F.Fatheema Beegum **----- End of picture text -----** Respondent/Respondent **==> picture [17 x 16] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** n **----- End of picture text -----** PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 151 READ WITH ORDER 23 RULE 3 0F THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE **==> picture [192 x 27] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** cprfrifedenttJpred£" **----- End of picture text -----** **==> picture [17 x 19] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** rl **----- End of picture text -----** \a'" /C``o6u;so:I,¥ofs£:.trlafm##?7p#;iant ## IN THE HIGH COUFIT OF JUDICATURE OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM ## I.A. NO ## of 2022 ln ## R.F.A.No. 813 of 2009 ## Suresh Kumar ## F.Fatheema Beegum Petitioner/Appellant ## Respondent/Respondent ## INDEX rl **==> picture [359 x 85] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** SINO Particulars Page NOs 1 Affidavit I.-.-J- 2 Annexure A: The original of the agreement L3 -3, dated 29,01.2022 ' 3 Petition **----- End of picture text -----** Dated this the loth day of February, 2022 jD~-=rJ N.K. Subramahian, Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant. r) rl 0 **==> picture [304 x 23] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM **----- End of picture text -----** **==> picture [325 x 186] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** I.A. NO Of 2022 ln R.F.A.No. 813 of 2009 Suresh Kumar Petitioner/Appellant Vs. F.Fatheema Beegum Respondent/Respondent AFFIDAVIT **----- End of picture text -----** I, Suresh Kumar, aged 45 years S/o Ignatius, Ponnanikkal House, Kanjircodu Muri, Mulavana VIllage, do heredy solemnly affirm and state as follous: 1. I am the Appellant in the Regular First Appeal and the petitioner herein. I know the facts of the case and I am also conversant with the facts deposed to below. 2. The above appeal is directed against the decree in o.S No.8 of 2004 of Additional Sub Court, Kollam directing realisation of Rs 2,63,320/with 6 % interest and costs. 3. It is submitted that during the pendeney of the above appeal, a settlement has arrived at between me and the respondent/plaintiff and the same has been reduced in to writing as "Othutheerpu Karar". The Original of the said agreement dated 29,01.2022 signed by both of us is produced herewith and the same may be marked as Annexure A. As per the said agreement the entire decree amount and interest, amounting to Rs 5,58,000/- has been paid to the respondent/plaintiff throngh online transfer to the Pemumpuzha Gramedharana Co-operative Bank, in which the respendent/ plaintiff holds an Account. The payment of the above settlement amount has been received and admitted by the respondent/ plaintiff as per J2- u clause 8 of the settlement agreement. Accordingly, the respondent/ plaintiff has also agreed to lift the Order of Attachment passed by the Court below, and it is also agreed by the respondent/plaintiff that she will not oppose an if application filed in the court below for the said purpose as agreed in clause 6 of the agreement. Further the respondent/plaintiff has also agreed to file an application by me for the return of the Sale Deed bearing number 4098/2002 dated 14.08.2002 of Kundara SRO, which is in my name, as per clause 7 of the settlement agreement. In the circumstances it is most humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to pass a judgment recording the Settlement Agreement produced along with this application. It is also most humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to pass a decree making the Settlement Agreement along with this application as part of the decree, in the interests of justice. All the facts stated above are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Dated this the loth day of February, 2022. **==> picture [11 x 23] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** L'/ /-,' **----- End of picture text -----** ## Deponent ## u Solemnly affirmed and signed before me by the deponent, .yvho is personally known to me, at my office at Ernakulam on this the February, 2022 j) N.K.SUBRAMANIAN, Advocate. „®acc-fr `.3 ## rl €cB]q!9O fro KERALA ## DG 518006 a 2o22-oo ao6ne° 29-oo col®col 6)d3>og!o cooeJ3colaj3 a89orcD QI1€%gBled 6]alocmo6TTfldsoed Qfl§1ed eE!€crr)a£]jcn]® adba3 44 Qlce7q|)899 a cro3€®Q£]°db3ao6 6)Q®.all 63(moo@d3fflcoo®8o sl cooeJ3d¥)1aB gp§tnJ9936 8 Qfl€gjgBled aJ3co8d=.cm36 6al®1cefled @ra(n)coo®8d9>36TortD° a@o8 59 Qi®q`}8 9g Qnocoro)1a06nflc0o ®6neood}dhg]1®0®8o rL®93col coqpoood=)1cef7§899 63co8col6dF d3.®O@. rl B cocagla£ ®6TT3ood3.dhfn QJocl®o®8o 63(TT)oo d}cBffl6)® caJcol®o & d5>1a2>8o 6>dbog!o €d3,oscolofled a[]®ed 6>alce>°col®8cm 2oo4 crdlof7ed 8-oo cocnl@ €db(roe QIof31d5.° ®racT)8d}3E]aoof7 QflcL)1®86neocefl§399co8o sl E QflcLfl®°{ff>° a¢)col®oQ;I 63(TT)ood}dhgn €db®90 6]6)cLo€d=)Oscol®co3 RFA 813/2oog -oo cr]tni®ocef) toTafffled €6nlou5]dflctl§89§co° col@d¥od=.06ico cole]Qfl efl®1d5)8cTT)co8ao6m°. ®6neood3.affld5)° tcracT)8d}3elao® orlcL)1 coscff}e]od5)1 d}1§8cmcol€erd¥)ocof] cn)6"° €dboscol E.P.172/2017 o®(in Qflofl cT)score)8 of)dgB1 !ofi®ed 6.Lal®°col§899co8o a3Iacolco8 E.P.172/2017-oo cT)t"6 I.P Oferoule]89 pgaD3o 6)6)ofJ€d5)oscol €q}? 6]al®°col§3§9co3ao6m°. E63(mood}dhffl : Cro8€®afrd3>8aod 6)a®.aj} : cLOOcola06Tncoo I:-i§=.S.:-i c%Thq^ **==> picture [155 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** '```Q,E`_ 'J C. SIVAKUN#ti R\\. VENDOR \ KOILA" **----- End of picture text -----** 4ha. fr/- ri 6ch®ao a5fflKERALA : 2 : DG 51 8007 [pculdbo®ffl®16)d5) leo 29o ce.dh2fld}98o (craor®86)s (oTarngcce)d9>ood3t±ndJ>93o cn)o(n)o®1ct8 st €dbcn)a ®og31®ocff)3cmcol6)cod¥)8olif (n)o(n)o ffn®Jco:al®®8o cL)o®6mQi}6m®ro)1a2it§899co8o a5T@cocD8(n)®1i2j' go ®Og31 coqpo irod5.1 63dfl5]§3§§co3ao6m°. eg@8ce,ceifflce>98o ®06>9cL[o®3cm QijQlonl]dbcA co8cn)®1d5)oa3 (n)caaDltll§899colcT)odd coo6]9 alo®8(in QtyQlcrundbof efl€dso6necoo6m: ## hi{orondbc6 rl a. 6]dbogjo cn]6T2f €dbosoft®36.s 2004 ofQfled 8-00 cotnl6 €dbofe[8 g::gifoffo¥SS£°2co:°S::co:°9:S::o°m®8::di¥oofofco°2:o®:: coqpooo6)6mcm° cn)ca of}d¥)8(m8. a. 5] 63oafflndt6)eJ Qflcl5}(T`)o6i{j 63cmoodbd3igfl®36)s 6nlo831,1€e]d¥)° ?06ri86]6]er6ri3 c5oa3(n)°an6 or91 (6)al®8cnl89 ccoo€aoci)o®6m €dbo-63od¥€oof)9?Qj' 6nlo@) coco3d}1cef]§899®° ®6neood3>d9]£11 6)6)d}d]flcof]§8 a 9coo6mo. •i!;.To;I 'f',i::ngTd;ir¥d9fll : cm8G®a£1°d8,8ao6 6.a®.ail 6neoo\&ceirf7 : aj]ocoro>1ao6nflcoo .,:i:,,:.[B',,+,: /cD G== 6)tc2±`,g+-J rtycac2fr¥,j> agds ds cT5P)giv Oar Garmf ce si`€AKUNthRErfe`\``` --i:~. VENDOR KOLIAM ., hFT>ch-dy3 ## :3: 3. sl Qflofcn>o6ng ®6neooce,d3iallco° 63onocefl 6)dinos8a]roil§8§9colcooco3 ©6n3oo dbdrml sl Qflofcald}o®a89§ cooou 63cmoodbda£]1dico3 Ofon8o Epgsocooa8 €aefled ®06>®o®8 cosoJg}®8o cosco3(mco6)g3crT)° g2aDlcT)oafo cn)cacold¥)8(m8. 4. gpo 63cO8aD1@d]o d3,®06 €d3,®§0 6>6.cLOcd=.Oscolcorlco3 cL008B®Od5>1 (eracffleJ8o aDo6)9 €dfaoscolof6)eJ €dbcro3o ®og31®ocofl col@cml§899cooof €©6tl6)d¥ s8coro>1 9co®Of aloqpodso8cmcolcD° ®6ne°dbedd3.§3o EpcolcT)oafo crocncolej]®1cco8 On8. 5. €aefla£ ®6neood3.danl 63cmoodbdh±Ildso° a®®1®Oof ®06)coo®8 asroQJce.oco QJoc6en€9o, €d3>co3db€99 coco3d}1 6m8faLfla85]col6)%CrT)8o 1 9o 29o dbd3iHld}cfi ` cocalel8§9 coO§1co3ou6)®®89e rL®g;O gpsaJOS8dbg8o 63arm3col@cHoccol ©Ta€cT)jocDjo r) 6"ocojcodbglg!o Q®cm8 cn]cacolefl®1es)3cm8. 6. d3,19u €dhoscolQflco3 cd3.mfle]36neoof§899 gBorcol 9a5ro)®Of Ofs8coco3 6>alqp3cm®1co° 63cmoodbccefldso° asT@ord}ocoa399co3o €or6me (ora€alaH coeddb3 €cmoed ®6neoodbedl co6coal6.g!cm° €6"ocLfld]1al36]dinog§oou3cmcoo6m°. 7. ®6neood3>d3ffl 6]d}og!o (n)6nJ° GdboscolQf}co@ ®T@cojo®€coo6)socs]o cLoog3©o dsolQfl§899 63m)ooce.d3tfn®86)s cal®1eJ8§9 OfEH®OcL>O®aJro)16.a3 ®TaesEH8o eecr>8 6"(Tu) oldDO@CuJ8d9>98o col®16)db QJ065T31 a®S8dso8(mcolco° ®6msood3.dhiflco° co6daD al67aecm8o tgrg®cou 63cmoodbcfhfn t8t@€ulcEhfz 6]®>os8a]TZD8 ouo6unl a®s8dso8tmcolcr]3 ep®8dbdhgf] d3>98o (nJca col i2jl c@1d5]8tm8. 8. 6>co*fled6]aq? co8d3>Q27o® 5,58,ooo/ (co6Tey° e]dhglcoro.1 cocnlcol rl a®qpoQfl®o) ®3aJ ®6n3ooce.d3Gfl®86)s €al®1€eJco° 6ial®3cm89 ccooGaocljo®6m €dbo-63od]€o*flor° 6n[oe,l€ffdso° 6306TT36)6)EH6n3 csoa3co°ch@ or9l coscoro)1®co° 6)6)d}d¥9] €6"OcL)j6)d¥S®1es)8(n)8 (@radflco3 6)aleJof cn)®olcoo). g2cale>O®o in)i®€a G6nlorai)j6]ci¥§8 63a}ro8col@cH° d3]®ooled 9®roia €6nioTEljj Gcoo6)s a®a6)c5H§1§39§. 63([T)Ood3>d32en : Cro3€®a£±°db8go@ 6)cL®.ail ®6ineooce,dhfn : al]ooro>1ao6nflcoo n ## IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF KEIIALA, AT ERNAKULAM ## I..^" / of2!f in:2 in ## R.FA.No. 813 of 2009 ## petitioner/givpelLaut Suresh Kumar, aged 45 years S/o Ignetius, Ponnanikkal House, Kanjircodu Muri, Mulavana VIllage, Kollam 691503. Vsl ## Be§pondent/B§§pondent F Fathima Beegum, d/o Azanarukunju, Shajila Manzil Punnukanncor Cherry, Elampalloor VIIIage, Kollam -691501 ## PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 151 READ WITH ORDER 23 RULE 3 0F THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is most humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to pass a judgment recording the Settlement Agreement produced along with this application and also prayed to pass a decree making the Settlement Agreement along with this application as part of the decree. ## n Dated this the loth day of February, 2022. 5,+frf N.K. Subramaniah, Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant.