George Samuel. Vs. Indian Penta Costal Church of God. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[mr. justice b.s. patil, j.] this mfa is filed u/s 173(1) of mv act. against the judgment and award dated: 29/1 1/2006 passed in mvc no. 4382/2004 on the file of the xi additional judge. court of small causes. member. mact, metropolitan area. bangalore. (scch-12), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation with 12% interest.1. these appeals concern judgment and decree in o.s.no.204 of 1996 of the court of learned munsiff, mavelikkara. that is a suit for declaration of title and injunction filed by the plaintiff. after the death of defendant nos.1 and 2 their legal representative, defendant no.3 filed a counter claim. trial court granted decree in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the counter claim. the decree in the suit and the dismissal of the counter claim were challenged in a.s.no.160 of 2004. first appellate court allowed the appeal in part. plaintiff has come up in r.s.a.no.1061 of 2006 while r.s.a.no.577 of 2007 is filed by defendant no.3. 2. parties have settled their dispute outside the court and filed compromise vides i.a.no.3049 of 2009 in r.s.a.no.577 of 2007. 3. i have heard counsel on both sides. it is requested by counsel on both sides that these appeals may be disposed of in terms of the compromise. accordingly, the compromise is accepted and recorded. these appeals are disposed of in terms of the compromise (vide i.a.no.3049 of 2009 in r.s.a.no.577 of 2007). the compromise shall form part of the decree of this court. parties will be entitled to refund of court fee as provided under the relevant law.

Judgment:
1. These appeals concern judgment and decree in O.S.No.204 of 1996 of the court of learned Munsiff, Mavelikkara. That is a suit for declaration of title and injunction filed by the plaintiff. After the death of defendant Nos.1 and 2 their legal representative, defendant No.3 filed a counter claim. Trial court granted decree in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the counter claim. The decree in the suit and the dismissal of the counter claim were challenged in A.S.No.160 of 2004. First appellate court allowed the appeal in part. Plaintiff has come up in R.S.A.No.1061 of 2006 while R.S.A.No.577 of 2007 is filed by defendant No.3.

2. Parties have settled their dispute outside the court and filed compromise vides I.A.No.3049 of 2009 in R.S.A.No.577 of 2007.

3. I have heard counsel on both sides. It is requested by counsel on both sides that these appeals may be disposed of in terms of the compromise. Accordingly, the compromise is accepted and recorded. These appeals are disposed of in terms of the compromise (vide I.A.No.3049 of 2009 in R.S.A.No.577 of 2007). The compromise shall form part of the decree of this Court. Parties will be entitled to refund of court fee as provided under the relevant law.