V.A. Sivadasan v. V.P. Muraleedharan (RFA Nos. 232/2018 and 330/2018, High Court of Kerala)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. Somarajan
Judgment Date: 2021-12-10
Court Decision / Holding: A compromise arrived at by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC was accepted by the court, and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the compromise to form part of the decree. The court also ordered refund of the entire court fee paid, referring to a settled legal position.
Final Disposition: Disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at by the parties; the compromise will form part of the decree.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V.A. Sivadasan

Respondents

V.P. Muraleedharan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• null

Counsels for Respondents

• null

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Regular First Appeal, heard by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, arises from a judgment and decree dated 24 March 2017 in O.S. No. 224/2012 of the Subordinate Court, Thalassery. The appellants are V.A. Sivadasan (defendant) and the respondents are V.P. Muraleedharan (plaintiff). The two RFAs (232/2018 and 330/2018) were listed together for hearing. On 10 December 2021, the court noted that the parties had arrived at a compromise out of court under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC and produced the compromise so as to pass a decree based on it. The respondent’s counsel initially pleaded ignorance about the settlement, but the compromise was signed by both parties and an advocate with his seal. The court observed that the compromise was not brought to the notice of opposing counsel earlier, but nonetheless accepted it and proceeded to pass a decree in terms of the compromise. The court also directed refund of the entire court fee paid, citing a legal position established by a decision of the Madras High Court (High Court of Judicature at Madras v. M.C. Subramaniam, 2021 (2) KHC 62). The appeals are thus disposed of in terms of the compromise, which will form part of the decree.

Provisions of Law Cited

Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Compromise and decree under Order XXIII CPC; doctrine that a court may pass a decree in terms of a compromise arrived at by the parties; refund of court fees in light of settled legal position.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant and respondent, having amicably settled their disputes out of court, submitted a compromise agreement under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC and requested the court to pass a decree in terms of the compromise. They stated that recording the compromise and incorporating its terms into the decree would prevent further hardship and potential litigation, and that the decree should reflect the settlement to avoid execution of the earlier judgment.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent’s counsel initially claimed ignorance of the out-of-court settlement; nevertheless, the parties proceeded with the compromise and requested the court to accept it and pass a decree in accordance with the terms of the arrangement, so as to avoid further dispute and to secure the parties’ interests.

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 support the principle that court fees paid can be refunded when a compromise decree is recorded, and the court followed this position in directing refunds.

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