The court disposed of a partition suit based on a compromise memo signed by all present parties, dispensing with absent defendants' presence and decreeing terms of the memo.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.12.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.No.522 of 1992
L.H.Premavathy .. Plaintiff
..Vs..
1. L.H.Padmavathy
2. L.H.Parijatham
3. L.H.Hemavathy (deceased)
4. L.H.Venkataraman (deceased)
5. L.H.Vidyapoornan (deceased)
6. L.H.Krishnan
7.V.Aravind
8.V.Baskar
9.Gaytathiri
10.Harish babu
11.Anuradha
12.Hemantha Raja ..Defendants
(Defendants 7 and 8 are the sons and legal heirs of the
deceased 4 th defendant impleaded in SLP Nos.9242,
243/2005 on the file of the Supreme Court of India
dated 23.01.2009).
(Defendants 9 to 12 are the wife, son,daughter and son
of the deceased 5 th defendant).
Defendants 7,8,9,10,11,12 are impleaded in
A.Nos.2648 to 2654 of 2017 of this Hon'ble Court).
2
Plaint filed under Order 24 Rule 4 of the original side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code praying to pass a judgment and decree:-
i)Directing a partition and separate possession of the properties described in the schedule A, schedule B, schedule C and schedule D in the proportion of 1/7th share to the plaintiff 1/7th share to the 1st defendant, 1/7th share to the 2nd defendant, 1/7th share to the 3rd defendant, 1/7th share to the 4th defendant, 1/7th share to the 5th defendant, 1/7th share to the 6th defendant.
ii)directing the defendants 1 to 6 to pay the plaintiff the cost of this suit. For Plaintiff : Mr.R.Raghavan
For Defendants: Ms.R.Preetha for D- 1 & 2
For Defendants: Miss.S.Sheela for D-6,7,8,9,10,11 & 12
3
J U D G M E N T
A memo of compromise signed by all the parties filed in the Court,
and the plaintiff as well as the defendants 1,2,6,8,9,10 and 12 are present.
2.The learned counsel for defendants 7 and 11 affirmed that their
clients have also signed and are unable to be present due to other
pre-occupations.
3.Considering the submission of the learned counsel, the presence
of defendants 7 and 11 is dispensed with. The suit in C.S.No.522 of 1992
is decreed in terms of the compromise memo. The memo of compromise
shall form part of the decree. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
06.12.2017
KP
Index : Yes/ No
Internet : Yes/ No
Speaking Order/ Non-speaking Order
R.SUBRAMANIAN,. J.
4
KP
C.S.No.522 of 1992
06.12.2017
L.H.Padmavathy
R.SUBRAMANIAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
