SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Ker) 8

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Mavullathil Anandan – Appellant
Versus
Kannampoliyan Nanu – Respondent


Advocates:
T. A. Ramadasan, for Petitioner; Grashious Kuriakose, for Respondents.

Judgement

ORDER :- A compromise petition was filed signed by plaintiff, defendants, except one and their counsel. A compromise decree was passed in terms of the compromise. Whether the defendants, who did not sign the compromise petition, is entitled to file an application to set aside the compromise decree on the ground that he is not a signatory to the compromise alleging fraud ? Whether the signature of the counsel for the party in a compromise petition is sufficient and whether it is mandatory that all the parties to sign the compromise petition? There the questions to be settled in the revision petition.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. Petitioner and his brothers, respondents 3 and 4, are defendants. O.S. 357/94 was filed before Sub-Court, Thalassery for fixation of boundaries. After Commissioner submitted a report and plan, objection was filed to the report. Thereafter a settlement was arrived at between the parties. I.A. 814/01 was filed on 7-3-2001. In that compromise petition signed by first plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 and counsel appearing for plaintiffs and defendants, it was stated that the dispute was settled between the parties accepting the report and p























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top