Allowed

K.Venkatasubba Raju v. C.P.Rami Reddy, s/o late

Madras HC27 Apr 2018CS/933/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, the court passed a preliminary decree approving a joint memorandum of compromise filed and signed on 29.03.2018, confirming the plaintiffs' undivided share and restraining the defendant.

What did the court decide?

Preliminary decree passed entering the joint compromise; plaintiffs declared entitled to 1/15th share; defendant restrained from interference.

K.Venkatasubba Raju Vs C.P.Rami Reddy, s/o late — Partition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 27.04.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

C.S.No.933 of 2017
1.K.Venkatasubba Raju
2.Y.V.Srinivasan
3.Ammini Jacob
4.R.Ravikumar
5.D.Vijayakamurthy
6.Venkataramiah Choudary Kuchi
7.A.Sivakumar Reddy
8.V.S.Sankar
9.Dr.Srinivasa Naga Raja
10.Chrystal Easdon
11.Ryan Easdon
12.Roy Dasdon
13.D.Kanchana
14.Srinath Shankar
15.Durga Shankar
16.Santha Sheela Nair
17.S.S.Raghavan
18.Vaidehi Raghavan ... Plaintiffs
Vs.
C.P.Rami Reddy
Rep. by Power Agent
K.Sathish ... Defendant

¶7

Prayer: The Civil Suit has been filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the O.S.Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. 1908, declaring that the plaintiffs are jointly and absolutely entitled to the 1/15^th undivided share in 4 grounds and 112 sq. ft. retained by the defendant comprised in Survey No.168 Part, forming part of DTP approved layout

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

¶10

No.91/65 and bearing Plot No.36, Thiruvanmiyur Village, assessed as Old No.41A, New No.70, Beach Road, Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai 600 090 and morefully described in the schedule and consequently restrain the defendant, his men, agents or anybody claiming through him from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs.

¶11

For Plaintiffs : Mr.P.Rajesh For Defendant : Mr.P.B.Balaji

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

The learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendant are

¶14

present and filed a joint memo of compromise entered between the parties dated 29.03.2018. The parties are also present before the Court and signed the joint memo of compromise. In fact the defendant submitted himself to a decree, confirming the 1/15^th undivided share of the plaintiffs in the suit property.

¶15

2.Hence, the preliminary decree passed in terms of the joint memo of compromise. The joint memo of compromise dated 29.03.2018 shall form part and parcel of the decree. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

kas

¶17

27.04.2018

¶18

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

kas

C.S.No.933 of 2017

27.04.2018

http://www.judis.nic.in

K.Venkatasubba Raju v. C.P.Rami Reddy, s/o late

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Venkatasubba Raju v. C.P.Rami Reddy, s/o late

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

Mr.Ravi Vish Vs Dhanalakshmi

Venkat Raman Vs N.jayachandran

Debts of Vs Mrs.Premanjali Rao

Debts of C.Chinnaiah Vs Muniyammal

K.Bala Venkatesh Vs S.Pramila

Certain Securities of Vs Radhakrishnan