V.A. Sivadasan v. V.P. Muraleedharan

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. Somarajan
Judgment Date: 2021-12-10
Court Decision / Holding: The court accepted the compromise arrived at by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC and passed a decree in terms of the compromise. Both RFAs were disposed of in terms of the compromise, which will form part of the decree. The court directed refund of the entire court fee in light of the cited Madras High Court authority (2021 (2) KHC 62). The compromise is to be incorporated into the decree, concluding the appeals.
Final Disposition: Disposed of in terms of the compromise; decree to be passed incorporating compromise terms; court fee to be refunded as per cited authority; appeals concluded by settlement.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V.A. Sivadasan

Respondents

V.P. Muraleedharan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Regular First Appeal Nos. 232/2018 and 330/2018 were heard by the Kerala High Court arising from the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2017 in O.S. No. 224/2012 of the Subordinate Court, Thalassery. The appellants were V.A. Sivadasan (defendant) and the respondents V.P. Muraleedharan (plaintiff). On 10 December 2021 (heard on 10.12.2021 in both RFAs), the court recorded that the parties had amicably settled their dispute by a compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, supported by affidavits and signatures including the respondent’s. Although the compromise had not been brought to notice of counsel earlier, the court accepted it and passed a decree in terms of the compromise, disposing of both appeals. The court noted the need to implement the compromise and incorporate its terms in the decree and directed refund of the entire court fee in view of the Apex Court’s position as stated in a Madras High Court decision, 2021 (2) KHC 62 (referred to as High Court authority). Appendices show the original compromise agreements dated 20.11.2021. The judgment thus records that the compromise will form part of the decree and that the matter is settled amicably out of court, with no further contest by the parties.

Provisions of Law Cited

Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants submit that the parties have amicably settled their disputes out of court and that the compromise agreement produced with the pleadings should be enforced by passing a decree in terms of the compromise. They request that the decree be prepared incorporating the compromise terms and that the lower court decree not be enforced in its original form. They rely on Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC to record the settlement and on the Supreme Court/Madras High Court authority cited by the court to justify refund of court fees.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent initially pleaded ignorance of the alleged settlement before the court; however, the compromise is signed by the respondent and an advocate. The respondent subsequently accepts that the parties settled amicably and that the decree should be passed in terms of the compromise, with the terms incorporated into the decree. The respondent notes that the entire decree amount was paid on 19/11/2021 and supports disposal of the appeals by a compromise decree to avoid further litigation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
High Court of Judicature at Madras rep. by its Registrar General v. M. C. Subramaniam and others	2021 (2) KHC 62	Positive	Cited to justify refund of court fees and acceptance of settlements under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC; used as authority supporting the decree by compromise.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

' [RFA Mos. 232/2®18, 33®/2®18] ## IN ThE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERl\lAl(LJLAM ## PRESENT THE Hol\10URABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN FRIDAY, "E 1®" DAY 0F DECEMBER 2021 / 19" AGRAHAYANA, 1943 RI=A NO. 232 0F 2®18 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.03.2017 IN OS 224/2012 0F ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY ## APPELLANT/DEFENDANT : V.A, SIVADASAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/0.AYYAPPAN PILLAI, R/AT. VARAKUI(ARAYIL HOUSE, KOTTIY00R AMSOM, PAMPARAPPAN DESOM, P.O.KOTTIY00R, THALASSERY TALUK, KAI\INUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI . K . P . I-SII SRI . -ACKsoi\i Jenny ## RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF : V.P.MURALEEDIIARAN, AGED 60 YEARS, BUSINESS, S/0.FIAMA KURUP, R/AT. .ARCHANA' , MANATHANA AMSOM AND BESOM, THALASSERY TALUI{, RANNUR DISTRICT-67©1©1. BY AI)VS. K.K, MOHAMED RAVUF A DYUTHISENAN TIIIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL I+AVING COME UP FOR HEARING 0N 1®.12.2021, ALONG WITH RFA.330/2018, THE COURT 0N THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING : ' [RFA Mos. 232/2018, 330/2®18] # IN THE HIGH COLJRT 0F KERALA AT EFII\lAKULAM ## PRESENT ThE l10l\louRABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN FRIDAY, "E 10" DAY 0F DECEMBER 2021 / 19TH AGRAl+AYANA, 1943 RFA NO. 330 0F: 2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.03.2017 IN OS 224/2012 0F ADDITI0l\lAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY ## APPELLAl\lT/DEl=ENDAl\lT: V,A, SIVADASAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. AYYAPPAN PILLAI, R/AT. VARAKURARAYIL HOUSE, KOTTIY00R AMSOM, PAMPARAPPAN BESOM, P . 0 . KOTTIY00R, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI . I( . P . HARIsl+ SRI.JACKSON JOHNY ## RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF : V. P. MURALEEDl+ARAl\l, AeED 54 yEARs, s/O.RAMA KURup,R/AT `ARCHANA', MAl\lATHANA AMSOM AND DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK,KAI\lNUR DISTRICT -6701®1. BY ADVS. SRI . P . CllAl\IDRASEl(llAR SRI. I(. ARJUN VEl\luGOPAL SMT . V . A . HARITl+A SRI.SIDHARTH 8 PRASAD SRI . R . I\IANDAGOPAL THIS REGLILAF{ FIRST APPEAL IIAVINC COME UP FOR HEARING ON 10.12.2021, ALONG WITH RFA.232/2018, THE COURT 0N THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING : I [RFA Mos,232/2018,330/2®18] ## JUDGMENT A compromise aITived at by the parties is produced under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC so as to pass a decree based on the compromise. The respondent's counsel Sri. K.K.Mohamed Ravuf pleaded ignorance with respect to the alleged settlement. But, the compromise is seen signed by the respondent as well as one Adv.A.P.Manoj Kumar, Kuthuparamba with his official seal. It is so unfortunate that the compromise arived at by the parties not brought to the notice of the coJnsel appearing before this court. This is the second time, the matter was taken up before this court. As such, this court has no other option, but to accept the compromise and to pass a decree in terms of compromise. Accordingly, a decree is passed accepting the compromise. Refund the entire coult fee paid in view of the legal position settled by the Apex Court in HI.gh Court of Judl.catlire at Madras rep. By its Registrar General v. M.C.Subramaniam and others (2021 (2) KHC 62). Both the appeals are disposed of in terlns of the compromise alTived at by the parties. The compromise will form part of the decree. Sd/P . SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp • [Rl=A Nos.232/2018, 330/2®18] ## APPENDIX OF FIF.A.330/2018 FED.TTol`lEFtts ANNEXuRES: ANNEXuRE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C)NO.1675 01= 2018 DATED 09/07/2018 0F Thls HON'BLE COURT ## RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES NIL TRUE COPY ## P.A TO JUDGE • [RFA Nos.232/2018,33®/2018] ## APPEl\lDIXOFFIf.AA23212018 PETITI ONEF`'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1 "E OF2IGINAL AGREEMENT DATED 20.11.2021 SIGNED BEE:ORE AN ADVOCATE NOTARY RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES NIL lRUE COPY ## P.A TO JUcOE `6e" Jc,5,,gc P. Pvi`evse::#°#:36|0)2/ THE HON'BLE HIGII COURT OF KERALA AT #\viveyl#r:p ERNAKULAM I.A. No. Of 2021 R.F.ANo. 232 of 2018 (Against thejudgment dated 24.03.2017 in O.S No. 224/2012 in the Ccjurl of the Subordinalc Judge of 1``h_alassery) V.A. Sivadasan : Petitioner Appcllant/Defendant Vs. V.P. Muralcedharan : Rc::i)ondcnt/i-{csbondent/Plairitil.f -+--:--------_-`---`__-:_``:---lil--..I, *) +1 COMPROMIS`B Ai'PLICATI:I |LiT}D BY T£{E APPETLLANTAN D 1`HE iansrop{Diiff UHDER0REER,YtiZI RULFj 3 0F i3C.i)DUKE i.`.,...¥l F,\.\Z.c`,```+t\ 1'1 r iERE- v _|^,`,T (J \J-_ a Qly ,` j`-ae ``VrA-rj ,.,- fu-chI ' \\` , - ` A _ ^A,)I +r. %&+C#hewh2?sfr 6ch cM`\VA fvchrfu~ „- `st_ 9' an \F, qu^givrvIrfr 3srA,.`.thorl ,So;±n ) t=\^z44flfle` \j ur` \ vtr sTv;~ke" ,.,:"i 'r `; •?.:.,::1.:` nd whrh„ / ay„ r'j tyvM MtaeJeegiv `:a. .- „\u\ir\ ® QJJJ{eA cl:-:-:.-:,.-::`.:::::-:.:;::.`:i-::--:::i:;:i::.---i--::-.a:-`--:--:::-+li;--==::.i-:--:-:i::::=i:-:.::i=----- L© foe~ J3al C~elteori- . P#J crfeaut cc|. D#~ A is c\ar,6iJ^ Ldr\"#t BEFORETHEHON'BLEHIGHCOURT0FKERALAATERNAKULAM IANo. 2 /2021 In RFA No 232/2018 I. V.A sivadasan , Aged 72 years. S/o lyyappanpillai, R/atKottiyooramsom,Pamparappandesom, **==> picture [144 x 99] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** :|i,i,jd :(-.I i,1 -,-, I i,,\,J - `-`--1`1--, **----- End of picture text -----** . IrittyTaluk, Kannurdistrict 2.V.PMuraleedharan,Aged63years,S/oRamaKurup, R/atArchana.Manathanaamsomanddesom, Iritty Taluk, Kamur district enpBQ=MlsE \]ILlcATION FILED Bi [HE \p]ILLANI AND BESPQEL)ENT [NDER ORDER XX][[ RUI[ 3 0] I`]]E CoD] oE (.'l\`'ll-Plio(`I.:I- O I. The lst applicant herein is the appellant and the 2nd applicant herein is the respondent!nRFANo232/2018oftheHigfiCouriKerala,forpassingdecree and judgment. The agreement is produced along with the accompanying affidavitandthatmaybetreatedaspatofthedecreeandjudgment.Insuch circumstances,the1Stapplicanvappellantandthe2ndapplicant/respondentare willing to settle the dispute as per the compromise agreement. They do not wanttogetthejudgmentanddecreeofthelowerCouftenforced.Theabove appeal is filed against the judgment and Decree dated 20.03.20„ in O.S. 11^/^^,^ ^ . _ 224/2012oftheSubOrdinateJudgeThal,as^sery. > I, V`A`SI`vedabamNa; `}i'`, 2 2. That, the lst applicant/appellant and the 2nd applicant/respondent have subsequently settled their disputes amicably out of court. As per the settlement the appellant has paid the entire decree amount to the respondent on 19/11/2021. In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass decree and judgment in the above appealintermsofthecompromiseagreementandalsoincorporatetheterms r\ of agreement in the decree. Dated this the 20th day of November, 2021 **==> picture [534 x 173] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** \/.F] ` SrvcJa!Sa-rty cL:v' ` Appellant ffLuldeftya r' cop#g;!^gjrp-th-gd r-.,Tr I '_. ` I-=1ir\\~:.I,c -I, CI **----- End of picture text -----** Counsel for the Respondent -;,;l!l\,,,,--,,i`-,-I (f-,,:) i Li,:\.',Ll-:, ,:-i; JJ.y:, i ,+` i, (:, ,=, : i ,-,, : ,,--.,-, ` -: i:;i--i i I 1*, .-) : ,,,,,,,, ` ,:. .:i r; (-i , ,: I •L 3 BEFORETHEHON'BLEHIGHCOURT0FKERALAATERNAKULAM IANo. £ /2021 RFA No 232/2018 V.P. Muraleedharan : Petitioner/Appel lant Vs. V.A Sivadasan : Respondent/Respondent **==> picture [16 x 18] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** rl **----- End of picture text -----** We, V.PMuraleedharan, Aged 63 years, S/o Rama Kunp, R/at Archana. Manathanaamsomanddesom,IrittyTaluk,KarmurdistrictandV.ASivadasan Nair, Aged 72 years, S/o Iyyappan Pillai, R/at Kottiyoor amsom,Pamparappan desom, Iritty Taluk, Karmur district do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows. 1. We are the appellant and respondent in the above appeal and we are a conversant wlth the facts of the above case. The above appeal is filed against the judgmentanddecreedated20.03.2017inO.S.224/2012oftheSubOrdinateJudge Thalassery. 2. We, the appellant and the respondent have subsequently settled our disputesamicablyoutofcourt.Asperthesettlementtherespondent/defendanthas v\r\iA +L_ _ _,. \ paidtheentiredecreeamounton19/11/2021. r, Vrt. rfut+j2tal Q' v-f)` 4 Hence, it is humbly requested that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a judgment in the above appeal in terms of the compromise agreement and also incorporate the terms of agreement in the decree, otherwise very serious injury and hardship will be caused to the parties. Hence it is humbly submitted that the accompanying petition may be allowed. All the facts stated above are true and correct. rl Dated this the 20th day of November, 2021 -I`.'ldae# ' ` ` :.: : E. E- E= Solemnly affirmed and signed before me Oy the deponents who are n personally known to me on this the 20th day of November, 2021 at my office at Kuthuparamba. -,c,-~.` BA BAK.Y°A_X!,8cKcfAA#LRp3E£NRi.E.iTLOALORR#"n.' ph*526KiA6!g85R,3`;Sj.;;;6k56o