Partly allowed

R.Saravanan v. Mrs Devaki

Madras HC3 Sept 2018CS/21/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court recorded a memorandum of compromise regarding partition suits (C.S. Nos. 21 of 2007 and 522 of 2018) and dismissed the latter as withdrawn. Separately, in C.S. No. 21 of 2007, the Court allowed an application for a final decree based on an Advocate Commissioner's report.

What did the court decide?

Tr.C.S. No. 522 of 2018 dismissed as withdrawn; C.S. No. 21 of 2007 final decree passed on Advocate Commissioner's report.

R.Saravanan Vs Mrs Devaki — Partition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03.09.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

C.S.No. 21 of 2007 TR. C.S.No. 522 of 2018 A. No. 2728 of 2018, A.No.6230 of 2016 and O.A.No.726 of 2018

¶7

C.S.No.21 of 2007: R.Saravanan ..Plaintiff Vs. 1. Mrs. Devaki 2. Mr. R.Kannan ..Defendants Tr.C.S.No.522 of 2018: N.Vigneshmani ..Plaintiff Vs.

¶8

R.Saravanan 2. S.Shanmugapriya 3. R.Kannan ..Defendants PRAYER:

¶9

C.S.NO.21 OF 2007: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original

¶10

Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

preliminary decree for partition and separate possession by allotment of

¶13

¶14

plaintiff's 1/3 share in the properties mentioned in Schedule A & B to the

¶15

plaint, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their men, agents, servants, person or persons acting through or under them from any manner interfering with the business activities of the plaintiff at Shop No.D-42, Periyar Vegetable Market, Koyambedu, Chennai, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their men, agents, servants, person or person acting through or under them from alienating or creating any encumbrance in the properties morefully mentioned in schedule A & B of the plaint.

¶16

Tr.C.S.No.522 of 2018:

¶17

Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants or their agents or any other person acting on their behalf from interfering and disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the tenanted premised situated at D42, Periyar Kaikari Angadi, Koyambedu Wholesale market Complex, Chennai 600 092 and more fully described in the schedule hereunder.

¶18

For Plaintiff in C.S.No.21 of 2007

¶19

& Defendants in Tr.C.S.No.522 of 2018 : Mr.S.Sivashanmugam For Defendants in C.S.No.21 of 2007 : Mr.C.Rajan

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

¶22

For Plaintiff in Tr.C.S.No.522 of 2018 : Mr.S.Jeevanantham

¶23

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶24

Both learned counsel jointly filed a memorandum of compromise dated 30.08.2018 duly executed by the parties as well as their respective counsels and state that the same may be recorded.

¶25

Recording the memorandum of compromise dated 30.08.2018, the Civil Suit is decreed in terms of memorandum of compromise, which shall form part and parcel of this judgment.

¶26

Para 3(g) of the memo of compromise refers to Original Suit No. 2511 of 2018, initially filed before the XI Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai, and now transferred to this Court as Tr.C.S. No. 522 of 2018. The matter is listed today along with C.S.No.21 of 2007.

¶27

As the parties have arrived at a settlement, they agree that the Transfer Suit has become infructuous and may be withdrawn. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has made an endorsement to that effect.

¶28

Recording the same, Tr.C.S.No.522 of 2018 is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. All the connected Miscellaneous Applications are closed.

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

The Registry is directed to engross the final decree dated

¶31

¶32

23.11.2015 made in C.S.No.21 of 2007 upon non-judicial stamp paper of a value of Rs.25,000/-.

¶33

Sd/-A.S.M.J. 03.09.2018

¶34

//Certified to be true copy//

¶35

Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.

¶36

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶37

From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

¶40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶41

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶42

MONDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015

¶43

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶44

Application No.583 of 2013 in C.S.No. 21 of 2007

¶45

C.S.No. 21 of 2007:- R.Saravanan, S/o Late Ranganathan, No.74,II Main Road, Kumaran Nagar, G1, Sai Kumaran Apartments, Koyambedu, Chennai -92 ...Applicant/Plaintiff

¶46

¶47

Mrs.Devaki, W/o Late Ranganathan, 46, Nyniappa Naickan Street, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002.

¶48

Mr.R.Kannan, S/o Late Ranganathan, 48,Nyniappa Naickan Street, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002.

¶49

...Respondents/Defendants

¶50

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide the properties as per the preliminary

¶51

decree passed on 03/07/2009 in the above suit. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶52

This application coming on this day before this Court for hearing, the

¶53

¶54

Court made the following order:-

¶55

This is an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to divide the properties in accordance with the preliminary decree dated 3^rd July 2009 and pass final decree in terms of the report.

¶56

The applicant filed a suit in C.S.No.21 of 2007 for partition of the suit property and separate allotment of his share. The suit was decreed by this Court by Judgment and decree dated 3^rd July, 2009 in C.S.no.21 of 2007. The applicant was allotted 1/3 share in Plaint A and B Schedule. The preliminary decree has become final.

¶57

Thereafter, the applicant filed this interlocutory Application for passing final decree.

¶58

This Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to divide the property by metes and bounds in accordance with the preliminary decree with notice to the parties. The properties were partitioned among the parties. The report submitted by the advocate commissioner dated 28^th September 2015 shows the details of the partition made by him.

¶59

The applicant and the respondents have not filed objection to the

¶60

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶61

¶62

report submitted by the advocate commissioner.

¶63

The report filed by the advocate commissioner and the plan and

¶64

valuation shows that the properties were partitioned among the parties in an equitable manner. I am therefore of the view that a final decree should be passed in terms of the report submitted by the advocate Commissioner. The report, plan and valuation submitted by the advocate commissioner shall form part of the decree.

¶65

Accordingly final decree is passed.

¶66

In the upshot I allow the application.

¶67

Sd/-K.K.S.J.

¶68

23.11.2015 //Certified to be true copy//

¶69

Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.

¶70

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶71

From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶72

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Saravanan v. Mrs Devaki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Saravanan v. Mrs Devaki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Doshi Construction Vs M/S.Mec International Private

R.Krishnaji Reddy Vs Suresh Bafna

M.Subramanian Vs the District Collector

The Official Assignee Vs J.Bharati

Kannan Vs S.Kumar

G.Duraisayee Vs Devi Sundara Raju