In a suit challenging a settlement deed and alleged will regarding property shares, the court observed that the parties voluntarily executed a deed of compromise dated 28.06.2018. The suit was decreed in terms of this compromise deed.
Suit decreed in terms of the Deed of Compromise dated 28.06.2018 made part of the judgment.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.09.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
C.S.No.143 of 2014
Mr.Suresh Bhaskaran ...Plaintiff Vs.
PRAYER:
Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. and Order IV Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, praying that settlement deed dated 31.08.2006 and the memorandum of understanding dated 03.09.2006 be null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, the alleged Will said to have been executed by the late Mrs. Hyma Bhaskaran on 03.09.2006 may not be binding on the plaintiff, for passing of a preliminary decree alloting 1/2 share in the Schedule �A� and Schedule �B� property and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide Schedule �A� property by metes and bounds and to hand over possession of the same to the plaintiff, or in the alternative to effect a sale of Schedule �A� property and apportion the proceed in accordance with the shares determined under the preliminary decree, and to take accounts of �B� Schedule property in terms of the preliminary decree.
For Plaintiff : Mr.Govind Chandrasekhar
For Defendants : Mr.A.Arumugam Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J. J U D G M E N T
ska 14.09.2018
C.S.No.143 of 2014
Renuka Sushil
Suraj Sushil
Sharad Sushil
Anita Sumanth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
