Allowed

B.Mahalakshmi v. S.Vasanthi

Madras HC20 Apr 2018CS/305/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a partition suit and a testamentary suit jointly after parties agreed to a compromise mediated by the Tamilnadu Mediation and Concilliation Centre. The partition suit was decreed per the compromise memo, and the testamentary suit was declared infructuous. A subsequent order modified the fee refund direction to apply only to the partition suit.

What did the court decide?

Partition suit decreed per compromise memo; testamentary suit dismissed as infructuous; corrected order directs court fee refund only for partition suit.

B.Mahalakshmi Vs S.Vasanthi — Partition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Date : 20.04.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Tr. C.S.No.305 of 2016 & T.O.S.No.27 of 2016 &

¶7

A.Nos.114 and 115 of 2018
Tr.C.S.No.305 of 2016
B.Mahalakshmi ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1. S.Vasanthi
2. S.Malleswari ... Defendants
T.O.S.No.27 of 2016
Mlleswari ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. B.Mahalakshmi
2. S.Vasanthi
(Impleaded as per the Order passed in A.No.3518 of 2018 in
T.O.S.No.27 of 2016)
... Respondents

¶8

Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules 1956

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC praying for the following judgment and decree against the defendants.

¶12

a) To partition the suit property morefully described in the schedule

¶13

hereunder into three equal share by metes and bounds and allot 1/3 share to the plaintiff and handover the possession of the said 1/3 share in the suit

¶14

property to the plaintiff;

¶15

b) for costs of the suit

¶16

T.O.S.No.27 of 2016

¶17

Original Petition No 183 of 2015 was filed under Sections 232 and 276 of Indian Succession Act, XXXIX of 1925 for the grant of Letters of Administration. Against this petition a Caveat was filed on by the Caveators As per order of this Court, the Original Petition No.183 of 2015

¶18

was converted into Testamentary Original Suit No.27 of 2016.

¶19

For 2^nd defendant in

¶20

Tr.C.S.No.305 of 2016 & petitioner in T.O.S.27 of 2016 : : Mr.S.Sridhar

¶21

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶22

¶23

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶24

The suit in Tr.C.S.No.305 of 2016 has been filed for partition of the suit property and allot 1/3 share to the plaintiff.

¶25

The Testamentary Suit in T.O.S.No.27 of 2017 has been filed for

¶26

grant of letters of administration of the Will dated 14.03.2002.

¶27

Since the parties and the subject matter is one and the same,

¶28

both the Transfer Civil Suit No.305 of 2016 and Testamentary Suit in T.O.S.No.27 of 2017 have been taken up joint disposal.

¶29

When the matter is taken up toady, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the parties have reached at an amicable settlement before the Tamilnadu Mediation and Concilliation Centre, High Court Madras and therefore, they had entered into a compromise.

¶30

The parties are also present before this Court and they also admitted that they have entered into a compromise before the Mediation Centre, High Court, Madras and signed the Memo of Compromise.

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶32

¶33

In the terms of compromise, now the parties want to include one additional condition that the parent document shall be kept in a locker in Chennai Co-operative Bank, Pudupet, Chennai -2 and shall be opened by all the parties.

¶34

In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the suit in C.S.No.305 of 2016 is decreed in terms of the Compromise Memo filed by the parties and that the parent document shall be kept in a locker in Chennai Co-operative Bank, Pudupet, Chennai -2 and shall be opened by all the parties and the Compromise Memo shall form part of the decree.

¶35

Since a decree has been passed in C.S.No.305 of 2016, no

¶36

adjudication is required in the testamentary suit and the testamentary suit in T.O.S.No.27 of 2016 is dismissed a infructuous.

¶37

The Court Fee paid in both the suits are ordered to be returned to the parties. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications are closed.

¶38

20.04.2018

¶39

vrc Note : Issue copy on 24.04.2018

¶40

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶41

¶42

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J vrc

¶43

Tr.C.S.No.305 of 2016 &
T.O.S.No.27 of 2016

¶44

20.04.2018

¶45

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶46

¶47

Tr.C.S.No.305 of 2016

¶48

and

¶49

T.O.S.No.27 of 2016

¶50

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶51

The matter is listed today under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff in the T.O.S.No.27 of 2016.

¶52

2.The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in T.O.S.No.27 of 2016 submitted that while disposing this matter, this Court has passed an order to refund the court fee paid to the parties. It is the contention of the learned counsel that no court fee has been paid in

¶53

T.O.S.No.27 of 2016. The same shall be recorded.

¶54

3.In view of the same, the direction issued in Paragraph No. 9 of

¶55

the Judgment that court fee paid in both the suits are ordered to be returned to the parties is deleted.

¶56

4.Paragraph No.9 of the order dated 20.04.2018 made in Tr.C.S.No.305 of 2016 & T.O.S.No.27 of 2016 is to be read as follows:

¶57

“9.The Court fee paid in the partition

¶58

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶59

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶60

¶61

kas

¶62

suit (Tr.C.S.No.305 of 2017) alone is ordered
to be returned to the parties. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous applications are
closed.”
5.Registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections and
re-issue copy of the order to the respective learned counsel appearing
for the parties on payment of necessary charges.
07.06.2018
kas
Note: Issue on 07.06.2018

¶63

Tr.C.S.No.305 of 2016 and T.O.S.No.27 of 2016

¶64

http://www.judis.nic.in

B.Mahalakshmi v. S.Vasanthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Mahalakshmi v. S.Vasanthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Christiana Jaya Shobana Vs Babiola Marie Jayasree

Will (1) of S.Visalakshi Vs

Shanti Devi Galada Vs G.Sheila Raju

Shri Vallabhacharya VidyaSabha Vs Manoj Kumar Sonthalia

T.Ramanathan (Decd) Vs S.Subhashini

M.Senthil Kumar Vs Mr.v.Loganathan