High Court of KeralaRSA/540/2006disposed of

Rajendra Babu v. C.R.Suraj Babu

2015-05-22Honourable Mr. Justice A.Hariprasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2015/1ST JYAISHTA, 1937 RSA.No. 540 of 2006 ( ) ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN AS 38/2004 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 10.03.2006.

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 78/1997 of ADDL.SUB COURT, KOCHI DATED 21-08-2003.

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 1 & 2 :

--------------------------------------------------------------------

1. RAJENDRA BABU, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, MOOLAMKUZHI, COCHIN-682 002.

2. LAILA, W/O.RAJENDRA BABU, C.C.23/2207, THEVARKATT HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN-682 006.

BY ADV. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 3 & 4: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. C.R.SURAJ BABU, S/O.RAMAN MENON, RESIDING AT 'MEENAKSHI MANDIRAM', PALLURUTHY, COCHIN-682 006.

* 2. GOPALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT THEVARKATT HOUSE, C.C.NO.23/2007, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-682 006.(DELETED) * 3. VENU, RESIDING AT THEVARKATT HOUSE, C.C.NO.23/2207 PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-682 006. (DELETED) * RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF APPELLANTS AS PER ORDER DATED 10-12-2014 IN I.A NO.3089/2014. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR.

SRI.P.VISWANATHAN.

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: amk

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

------------------------------------------------ R.S.A No.540 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2015.

J U D G M E N T

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The matter was referred for mediation by order dated 01-04-2015. Pursuant to the mediation, the parties have arrived at a settlement. Memorandum of settlement under Section 89 of C.P.C is also submitted. I have gone through the terms of compromise. The parties have lawfully settled the claims.

2. Learned counsel submitted that the matter may be disposed in terms of compromise. The appeal and cross objection therefore are disposed of in terms of the compromise. The compromise shall form part of the decree. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

amk