SHEELA GEORGE Vs. NOORUDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 05.07.2014 in E.P. No.39/2013 in O.S. No.110 of 2001 before the Munsiff's Court, Chengannur, the decree holder-plaintiff has come up in Revision.

(2.) There is no dispute regarding the fact that the premises in question was subject matter of agreement under Ext. A1 document dated 05.02.1999. On the basis of that document, eviction was sought for in O.S. No.31/2000. Though initially the respondent admitted the arrangement as per Ext.A1, later he sought to amend the written statement by characterising A1 as a lease deed as per I.A. No.233/2005. The trial court dismissed the application and that brought the respondent before this court in W.P.(C) No.6639/2005 and this court confirmed the order of the trial court. But, however, this court reserved the liberty of the respondent to urge all his contentions at the time of trial. Subsequently, on 08.04.2005 the suit was decreed.

(3.) The disappointed defendant took up the matter in A.S. No.100/05 before the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara which was transferred to Sub Court, Chengannur and re- numbered as A.S. 245/2008. While the appeal was pending, the parties in their wisdom, thought of entering into a compromise and Ext.A3 compromise was entered into between the parties. They approached the appellate court for accepting the compromise and based on the compromise the appeal be disposed of. That was accepted by the appellate court and a decree in terms of the compromise was passed.