Unni @ Unnikrishnan v Chandran Subramanyan and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. Somarajan
Judgment Date: 2022-03-03
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at by the parties; compromise shall form part of the judgment and decree. There is a direction to refund the entire court fee paid, in view of the Apex Court position settled by a Madras High Court decision cited in the order. The court also records that the compromise will govern the partition of the plaint schedule property and will be implemented through a preliminary decree.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of by compromise with a preliminary decree for partition to be passed in four equal shares; court fee refund directed; compromise to form part of judgment and decree.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Unni @ Unnikrishnan

Respondents

Chandran S/o Erinjiyil Appu @ Krishnan, Rarakkad Desom, Curuvayoor Village, Chavakkad Taluk, Curuvayoor P.O., Thrissur District; Subramanyan S/o Erinjiyil Appu @ Krishnan, Remani Desom, Pottore Desom, Kolazhy Village, Thrissur Taluk, Kolazhy P.O., Thrissur District; Thanka M.S.; Smitha A.C.; Santosh A.C.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. M. Manoj
• K. Ravi Pariyarath
• C. Sreekumar Chelur

Counsels for Respondents

• P. Ramachandran

Case Synopsis & Summary

Unni @ Unnikrishnan filed Regular First Appeal (RFA 740 of 2011) against a trial court decree in O.S. 670/2008, a suit for partition of the plaint schedule property filed in the Court of the 11th Additional Sub Judge, Thrissur. The trial court had dismissed the suit on 24 January 2011. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties arrived at an out-of-court settlement. The compromise contemplates partitioning the plaint schedule property into four equal shares, with the appellant and respondents 1–2 in the appeal receiving one share each and respondents 3–5 together receiving the remaining share. The parties requested the High Court to record the compromise and pass a preliminary decree for partition on those terms, the compromise to form part of the judgment and decree. The High Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the compromise, directing that the entire court fee be refunded in line with the legal position settled by the Apex Court, as cited by the court in a Madras High Court decision reported at 2021 (2) KHC 62. The order was signed by Justice P. Somarajan, and the matter concludes with a consent decree rather than a contested merits decision.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant/plaintiff sought partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares by metes and bounds and allocation of one share to the plaintiff with future mesne profits. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the parties settled out of court and sought disposal of the appeal by recording a compromise for partition on terms agreeable to both sides, with a preliminary decree for partition to follow.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents supported the compromise, did not object to a decree for partition, and joined in the request to record the compromise and pass a preliminary decree for partition in four equal shares to implement the settlement.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Apex Court in High 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 court’s direction to refund the court fee, reflecting the legal position on refunds on settlement/compromise as referenced by the Kerala High Court from an apex/Madras High Court decision.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

RFA NO. 74® OF 2®11 ## IN THE HIGH COuRT 0F RERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT THE HonouRABLE MR. -usTlcE p.SOMARA.AN "URSDAy, "E 3ro DAY 0F MARCH 2®22 / 12" PHALGUNA, 1943 RFA NO. 74® OF 2®11 AGAINST "E JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24/1/2®11 IN 0S 67®/20®8 0F 11 ADDITIONAL SuB COURT, ThRISSUR ## APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF : UNNI © UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.ERINJIYIL APPU © I(RISHNAN, THIRUVENKIDAM DESOM, IRINGAPPRAM VILLAGE, CHAVAl(KAD TALUK. BY ADV SRI . P . RAMACHAl\lDRAI\l ## RESPONDENT/DEFENDANTS : CHANDRAN, S/O ERINJIYIL APPU @ KRISHNAN, RARAKKAD DESOM, CURUVAY00R VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, CURUVAYOOR P.0. , THRISSUR DISTRICT-68®1®1. (DIED) - SUBRAMANYAN, S/O.DO. RESIDING AT - REMANIRA HOUSE, POTTONI DESOM, KOLAZHY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, P.O.KOLAZHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-68®®1®. - REMANI, W/O. PONNARASSERI DHARMARAJAN, - AND D/O.ERINJIYIL APPU, KARAKKAD DESOM, GURUVAYO0R VILLAGE, CHAVAKRAD TALUK, GURUVAY00R P.0. , THRISSUR, DISTRICT-680101. - ADDL.R4 THANRA.M.S, W/0 ERINJIYIL CHANDRAN, ACE ABOUT 65 YEARS, ERINJIYIL HOUSE, KARAKKAD DESOM, GURUVAYOOR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, GURUVAY00R PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 101 - ADDL.R5 SMITHA A.C, D/O ERINJIYIL CHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PULIKKAL HOUSE, ARTHAT PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 68® 523 - ADDL.R6 SANTHOSH A.C., S/O ERINJIYIL CHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ERIN-IylL HOusE, KARAitRAD DEsOM, GURuvAyooR vlLLAeE, CHAVAKRAD TALUK, GURUVAY00R PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 68®1®1 - LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED FIRST RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 03/03/2®22 IN I.A.1/2®21 BY ADVS. P . M . MANOJ SRI . K . RAVI PARIYARATH SRI.C.SREEKUMAR CHELUR TIIIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING 0N ®3.®3.2®22, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RFA NO. 740 0F 2011 ## JUDGMENT The matter is settled between the parties. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at by the parties, Compromise wil.I form part of the judgment and decree. Since it is settled between the parties, there win be a direction to refund the entire court fee paid in view of the legal. position settled by the Apex Court in Hjgh 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 f'C HIGH COURT 0F KERAIA AT ERNAKULAM iii I-IA FILING DETAIIjs E-IA NO IA-2 02 201819 Filed ln RFA 740 / 2011 (Pending) Petitioner UNNI @ UNNIKRISIINAN PAYMENT DETAILS Fee Paid Balance Fee Paid Total Fee Paid Payment Status Success r\ Eil ## AEEHHM4mN E-[A-Filing No ~ IA-202201819 Date . 21-02-2022 IRamachandran,advocate.Flat5C,AsterAvenue,PonnethSouthRoad,KadavanthraKochi-20,do herebydeclarethat1haveverifiedthestatementsanddocumentsthehereinaboveuploadedandI verifythatthecontent,softheaboveapplicationaretrueandcorrecttobestofmyknowledgeand bellef,and1amcompetentandauthor]sedt,ouploadtheabovepleadingsanddocumentsonbehalfof thepetiL]oner.Istatethattheup]oadeddocumLintsareinconformityw)ththeor]gina]s/certif]ed copies which I possess. Hence verified on this 2] Day of February 2022 ## RamachandtsfrzT K/442/1993 I+VERIFIED n lA 1/2022 IN RFA 740/2011 rl h E-IA NO : IA-202201819 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM lANo ,/ ____OfYear2022 RFA No 740 0f Year 2011 > UNNl @ UNNIKRISHNAN Petitioner Vs > CHANDRAN Respondent SUBRAMANYAN SO.DO RESIDING AT REMANI WO.PONNARASSERI Smt. THANKA.M.S RECOR_DCOMP_RJ2_MJSE FEES PAID & STATUS -10 (Success) Sd/E-VERIFIED RAMACHANDRAN K/442/1993 [A 1/2022 IN RFA 740/2011 ## BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT 0F KERALA AT ERNAKULAM lA No I OfYear2022 ln RFA No 740 0f Year 2011 nSIJ ## UNNl @ UNNIKRISHNAN Petitioner V/S > CHANDRAN Respondent SUBRAMANYAN SO,D0 RESIDING AT REMANI WO.PONNARASSERI Smt. THANKA.M.S INDEX rtl Cont,ents RECORD COMPROMISE Page Nos 13 Sd/- E-VERIFIED RAMACHANDRAN K/442/1993 # BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT 0F KERALA AT ERNAKULAM I.A.No. of 2022 in R.F.A. No. 740 of 2011 ## EETHHQNER/Appel_Ij±D± Unni @ Unnikn.shnan, aged 54 years, S/o. En.njiyil Appu @ Krishnan, Thiruvenkidam desom, Iringappuram village, Chavakkad Taluk. C6C) /01 am_eal. - n 1. Subramanyan, S/o.Erinjiyil Appu @ Krishnan, Remanika House, Pottore desom, - Kolazhi Village, Thrissur Taluk, Kolazhi P.O., Thrissur District. 68 a ctlc) - Remani, W/o. Ponnarasserl. Dharmarajan and D/o. Erinjiyjl Appu , Karakkad desom, Guruvayoor Village,Chavakkad Taluk, - Guruvayoor p.O., Thrissur District. 66C) lc' I - Thanka M.S., W/o, Erinjiyil Chandran, aged about 65 years, Erinjiyil House, - Karakkad desom, Guruvayoor village,Chavakkad Taluk, Guruvayoor P.O., Thrissur District i580101. - Smitha A.C., D/o. En-n]-iyil Chandran, - aged about 45 years, Pulikkal House, Arthat P.O., Thrissur District -680 523. Santhosh A.C., S/o. Erinjiyil Chandran, - aged about 40 years, Erinjiyil House, - Karakkad desom, Guruvayoor village,Chavakkad Taluk, Guruvayoor P.O,, Thrissur District fi80101. **==> picture [108 x 18] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** unn'@u#l **----- End of picture text -----** **==> picture [236 x 238] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** 1. Subramanyan 2. Remani` PgivmIu..A 3. ThankaM.S.A 4. Smitha A.C -----:i_=-i 5. Santtlosh A.C giv¢ul Qrannorl \^tith ram.Qrannpr **----- End of picture text -----** -a- u u Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.670 of 2008 on the files of the Court of 11 Additional Sub Judge, Thrissur, a suit for partition and the respondents are the defendants 2, 3 and the legal representatives of deceased lst defendant. The prayer in the plaint is to partition the plain schedule property into four equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot one share to the plaintiff with future mesne profit. The trial court as per judgment dated 24.01.2011 dismissed the suit and the above appeal is filed challenging the decree and judgment of the trial court. 4. During the pendency of the above appeal the parties have arrived at a settlement out of court. The respondents herein who are the defendants in the suit have no objection in decreeing the suit as prayed for. The parties have agreed to partition the plaint schedule property into four equal shares. The appellant and the respondents 1 & 2 herein (respondents 2 & 3 in the appeal) will get one share each and the respondent 3 to 5 herein together will get one share. Both the appellant and the respondents have agreed that the above appeal may be disposed of by pass`ing a preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property on the above terms. 1. Subramanyan f2gr 2. Remani froJrrou..A) 3. ThankaM.S.jz 4. srritthaA.c8de 5. Santhosh A.C .Qrannorl \^;ith ram.QrannQr / - I) - >€ ` rl ThereforeltismosthumblyprayedthatthisHonourableCourtmaybepleased torecordtheCompromisearrivedatbetweenthepartiesandallowtheaboveappeal bySettingasidethejudgmentanddecreedated24.ol.2ollinO.S.670/20080nthe files Of the 11 Additional Sub Court, Thrissur and to pass a preliminary decree for Partltion Of the plaint schedule property in o.S.67o/2oo8 into four equal Shares by metes and bounds or to pass any other order or direction as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper. Dated this the 2 otbday of February, 2022 **==> picture [17 x 16] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** A **----- End of picture text -----** **==> picture [60 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** Petitioner **----- End of picture text -----** **==> picture [201 x 133] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** Respondents 1. subramanyan fr 2. Remani fu3~.. a 3. ThankaM,S.# 4. smithaA.c cSAlrfu ::-_-==_ 5. Santhosh **----- End of picture text -----** **==> picture [115 x 45] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** Unni @ Unnikrishnan EZ= **----- End of picture text -----** **==> picture [411 x 301] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** All the facts stated above are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information aBdafb£'je:Lrfu rfu ic>ho D qu 6§ ?`{:T_:_¥L:i Respondents Pet_i±ignff Unni @ Unnikrishnan 1. Subramanyan `J£ 2. Remani DOTtvi2rfu..A 3. Thanka M.S. 4Z_ 4.sTthaA.c8m4hiJflalJ&'RRE [L 5. Santhosh A.C .`-::::;:,,, Sreekumar G (Chelur) P. Ramachandran Counsel for the petitioner .- P.M.Manoj Counsel for the Respondent 1 **----- End of picture text -----** Qrannorl \^;ith r.@msrannar