INDIRAMMA Vs. MANOHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE to the respondents is dispensed with in view of the manner in which I propose to dispose of this original petition.

(2.) 1st respondent filed O.S.No.39 of 2010 in the Munsiff's Court, Vaikom against the 2nd respondent, as the learned counsel submits for a decree for prohibitory injunction against obstructing the pathway described as item No.2 in the plaint schedule and on the strength of a settlement reached between respondents 1 and 2, learned Munsiff decreed the suit on 10.06.2010. 2nd respondent is the wife of deceased son of petitioner. He owned 11 cents through which according to the petitioner, the disputed pathway runs. Petitioner claimed that on the death of her son (husband of the 2nd respondent) on 30.01.2001, the said property devolved on petitioner, 2nd respondent and her children. But in O.S.No.39 of 2010, only the 2nd respondent was impleaded and a decree was obtained as a result of collusion between respondents 1 and 2.

(3.) IN the meantime, petitioner has filed O.S.No.768 of 2010 in the Sub Court, Kottayam to set aside the compromise decree in O..No.39 of 2010 on the ground of fraud, collusion, etc. and that case is posted on 28.05.2012 in the list for trial.