Allowed

Sumathi v. Smt.S.R.Kandhimathi Ammal

Madras HC20 Nov 2017CS/579/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment records the decision to decree a partition suit based on a settled Memorandum of Compromise. The original decree was recalled and re-issued after the registry reconstructed the file due to a missing original plaint, ensuring the compromise terms were finally enforced.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed for partition of properties and true accounts of income as per the Memorandum of Compromise dated 19.06.2017.

Sumathi Vs Smt.S.R.Kandhimathi Ammal — Partition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 20.11.2017

¶4

Coram :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

C.S.No.579 of 2014 & O.A.Nos.713 and 714 of 2014

¶7

Mrs.R.S.Sumathe, W/o.Mr.Sarath Chandran, No.6B, Second Street, Ganapathy Colony, Gopalapuram, Chennai 600 014

¶8

... Plaintiff

¶9

-vs-

¶10

Mrs.S.R.Gandhimathi Ammal Ammal, W/o.Late S.Ramachandra Nadar, No.19, Nainar Nadar Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. 2. Mr.Muthukumar S/o.M.Krishnan, No.19, Ground Floor, Nainar Nadar Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶11

Mr. Nagarajan, S/o.M.Krishnan, No.19, First Floor, Nainar Nadar road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. 4. Mr. Arun S/o.M.Krishnan, No.19, First Floor, Nainar Nadar Road, Myalpore, Chennai 600 004.

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

¶14

Mr. Parthiban,

¶15

S/o.M.Krishnan, No.19, Ground Floor, Nainar Nadar Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶16

Mr. Dinesh, S/o.M.Krishnan,

¶17

No.19, First Floor, Nainar Nadar Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. ... Defendants

¶18

Plaint filed under Order VII, Rule 1 of CPC, read with Order IV, Rule 1 of O.S.Rules praying for

¶19

(a) partition of the properties described in the schedule hereunder and allot ½ share to the plaintiff;

¶20

(b) to direct the defendant to render a true and proper account of all the income earned from the suit properties after defraying lawful expenses being incurred in connection with maintenance of the properties;

¶21

¶22

For Plaintiff : Mr.V. Chandrasekaran For Defendants : Mr. T. Velumani

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The suit was decreed in the light of a Memorandum of Compromise executed as between the plaintiff and defendants and their respective counsel dated 19.6.2017.

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

¶27

Pursuant to the decree, the Registry appears to have found that the original plaint was missing in the file and as such, has put up a note praying for a direction to reconstruct the file. In the light of the aforesaid, the decree dated 19.06.2017 is recalled.

¶28

A direction was issued on 16.11.2017 permitting reconstruction of file. The same has been duly reconstructed and the learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed a plaint duly signed by

¶29

the plaintiff as well as its counsel, certifying the same to be a true copy of the plaint originally filed.

¶30

4.The suit is decreed in terms of memorandum of compromise

¶31

dated 19.06.2017 that forms part and parcel of the decree. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected applications O.A.Nos.713 and 714 of 2014 are closed.

¶32

20.11.2017

¶33

Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order

¶34

Index: Yes/No

¶35

msr/msv

¶36

Note : Issue copy on 23.11.2017

¶37

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶38

¶39

DR. ANITA SUMANTH, J.

msr/msv

C.S.No.579 of 2014

20.11.2017

http://www.judis.nic.in

Sumathi v. Smt.S.R.Kandhimathi Ammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumathi v. Smt.S.R.Kandhimathi Ammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Ranganathan Vs Union of India

Arunkumar @ Arunkumar Vs Smt.Kalpana Mehta(deceased)

P.Srinivasan (Decd.) Vs Mrs.Jayalakshmi (Decd)

M/S.Akshaya Agro Informatics Vs M/S.K.K.Rice Mill

Tekchand Jaichand H.U.F Vs K.Sivakumar

M.Jeyakumar Vs Mrs. Raniammal and 2 Others