Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29437
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.SOMARAJAN, J
MOHAMMED ALIAS KUNHAPPU
– Appellant
Versus
MOHAMMED ALI – Respondent
CRP 248 2022
K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN, M.DEVESH, G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
Important Points
Subject
Civil - Appeal
Headnote
Appeal - Decree - CRP No.248/2022, CRP No.168/2021 - The court dismissed appeals as non-party under compromise lacks aggrieved status; separate suit initiated may redress grievances.
Fact of the Case:
An individual appealed against a compromise decree claiming it allows parties to encroach on his property. The trial court dismissed his appeal stating he was not an aggrieved person, and he had initiated a separate suit for declaration.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the trial court's finding that the appellant was not an aggrieved party under the decree and highlighted that a separate suit was pending.
Issues: Whether a third-party, not involved in the original decree, can appeal against it as an aggrieved party.
Ratio Decidendi: A non-party to a compromise decree does not possess the status of an aggrieved person to appeal against the decree.
Final Decision: Both CRP No.248/2022 and CRP No.168/2021 are dismissed.
ORDER
CRP No.248/2022 is by a third person who sought permission to appeal against the decree based on a compromise arrived at by the parties. Admittedly, he is not a party to the compromise decree or the suit thereof. The allegation is that by virtue of the compromise entered into by the parties, they have agreed to set up a way. It is submitted that under the guise of the said document, they are attempting to cut open a way through his property. Hence the appeal as an aggrieved person. It was rejected by the trial court, finding that the appellant/petitioner is not an aggrieved person. The legal position is very much settled by this court inThottappayil Suresan and Others v. A.P.Gopalakrishnan and Others ( 2019 (1) KHC 284 ). It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they have initiated yet another proceeding, a separate suit for declaration and it is pending consideration. Somehow it has ended in dismissal for non-prosecution and thereafter an application was submitted for restoring the same, which was allowed.
The other CRP No.168/2021 by the defendant therein is against the restoration. Hence the restoration deserves no interference and CRP 168/2021 will stand dismissed accordingly. As discussed earlier, CRP No.248/2022 will also stand dismissed since a separate suit was already initiated for redressing the grievance of the petitioner herein. Both CRP hence will stand dismissed.
