MOHAMMAD ASHIR A. H. Vs. BEEFATHIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties in these appeals have settled the dispute and filed compromise memos separately in both these cases. On reading the compromise memos, the terms of the same are legally acceptable. However, it is noticed that appellant No.2, A.K. mohammad Kunhi, in RFA No. 419/2016 (2nd respondent in RFA No. 177/2016) stated to have signed in the compromise memo through his Power of Attorney Holder Mohammed Hasir A.H. Similarly, respondent No.2 Hishana Safeera J. also signed in the compromise through her power of attorney holder Mohammed ashir A.H. The power of attorney executed by Hishana Safeera J. in favour of Mohammed ashir A.H in original has been placed. When the power of attorney executed by A.K. mohammad Kunhi in favour of Mohammed Hasir A.H was ordered to be produced, A.K. mohammad Kunhi filed an affidavit stating that he himself had signed in the compromise memos and by mistake an endorsement was wrongly made in the last page of the compromise memos that he had signed through his power of attorney holder Mohammed Hasir A.H. Acting on the affidavit, it can only be found that Sri A.K. mohammad Kunhi himself signed and filed the compromise memos.

(2.) In view of the above, the compromise memos filed separately both in these appeals are accepted since the same are legal. Accordingly, the impugned verdicts stand set aside and both these appeals stand allowed in terms of the compromise. The compromise shall form part of the appellate decree in each case.

(3.) Registry is directed to keep the Power of Attorney executed by Hishana Safeera J. in favour of Mohammed Hasir A.H as part of permanent records in these appeals.