KUNHI RAMAN, SUBRAMONIA.IYER
Bappu Meerakutty – Appellant
Versus
Koyan Meerakutty – Respondent
1This is an appeal filed against the decree, based on a compromise, passed by the court below. The
petitioner for compromise filed in the court below was signed by the plaintiffs as also by defendants 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8. The appellants before this court are defendants 1 to 4, 6, 8 and 9. Of these, defendants, 1, 3 and 8 are signatories to the compromise petition. It is stated that these signatories resiled from the compromise subsequent to the filing of the petition in Court. Regarding the other appellants, except the 9th defendant, their names were struck off the array of parties by the court below. Mr. P. Govindhan Nair on behalf of the respondents takes a preliminary objection that the decree being one passed on a compromise S.76(3) of the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure (corresponding to S.96(3) of the Indian Code), prohibits this appeal. The answer to this objection given by Mr. Narayana Pillai on behalf of the appellants is that in a case where certain signatories to the compromise petition have resiled from the compromise the provisions of S.76(3) will not be attracted. The question as to whether, when there is a compromise and the court acts upon it and passes a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.