Joe Philip, vs Kishore,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 30, 2021

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1595068

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1595068
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: Nov 30, 2021
Case Number: RP/63/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Joe Philip,

Respondent

Kishore,

Excerpt

.....cmc ward no.21, cherthala, alappuzha-688524. this review petition having been finally heard on 30.11.2021, the court on the same day delivered the following: rp no. 63 of 2020 2orderthe review petition is by the respondent on the allegation that there is an apparent error on the face of the judgment of this court by which this court passed a preliminary decree for partition based on the finding that ext.a5 compromise entered into in o.s.no.146/1992 and the division of 1/4 th share thereof to the predecessor-in-interest of the 3 rd and 4th plaintiffs and subsequent purchase by the 3rd plaintiff and then the 4th plaintiff are valid and binding. the review petition is filed on the ground that ext.a5 compromise requires registration and that question was not taken into consideration. in fact, no such contention was raised before this court at the time of disposal of the suit. even otherwise, in view of the legal position settled in phool patti and another v. ram singh (dead) through legal representatives and another [(2015) 3 scc 164], the said contention cannot be sustained. when the compromise is within the four corners of the suit and confined only to the subject matter of the suit, unless there is a new right, title or interest was incorporated for the first time by way of compromise, no registration is required so as to accept the compromise and to pass a decree thereof. hence review fails, dismissed. sd/- p.somarajan judgemsp

Full Judgment

RP NO. 63 OF 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 RP NO. 63 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RSA 1141/2004 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: JOE PHILIP, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.PHILIPKUTTY, PANDALATHU KARIYILAYA, PUKASHASSERIL, VARANAMMURI, THANNERMUKKAM NORTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA-688555. BY ADVS. K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SMT.BHANU THILAK RESPONDENT/2ND APPELLANT/APPELLANT/4TH PLAINTIFF: KISHORE, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.JAYAPRASAD, MATTATHIL HOUSE, CMC WARD NO.21, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688524. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RP NO. 63 OF 2020 2

ORDER

The review petition is by the respondent on the allegation that there is an apparent error on the face of the judgment of this court by which this court passed a preliminary decree for partition based on the finding that Ext.A5 compromise entered into in O.S.No.146/1992 and the division of 1/4 th share thereof to the predecessor-in-interest of the 3 rd and 4th plaintiffs and subsequent purchase by the 3rd plaintiff and then the 4th plaintiff are valid and binding. The review petition is filed on the ground that Ext.A5 compromise requires registration and that question was not taken into consideration. In fact, no such contention was raised before this court at the time of disposal of the suit. Even otherwise, in view of the legal position settled in Phool Patti and Another v. Ram Singh (dead) through legal representatives and another [(2015) 3 SCC 164], the said contention cannot be sustained. When the compromise is within the four corners of the suit and confined only to the subject matter of the suit, unless there is a new right, title or interest was incorporated for the first time by way of compromise, no registration is required so as to accept the compromise and to pass a decree thereof. Hence review fails, dismissed. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

msp

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2021 Same Parties Joe Philip, vs Kishore, Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan