Allowed

Mehaboobjohn v. S. Baskar

Madras HC29 Sept 2021SA/1090/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC. The court accepted a filed Joint Memo of Compromise where the appellant paid the respondent, the respondent waived claims to suit properties, and agreed to dismiss the underlying suit.

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal was allowed, suit dismissed, and judgment and decree of lower courts set aside based on the terms of the Joint Memo of Compromise.

Mehaboobjohn Vs S. Baskar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 29.09.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶5

S.A.No.1090 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

Mehaboobjohn

¶7

... Appellant/Defendant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

S.Baskar

¶10

... Respondent/Plaintiff

¶11

PRAYER: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2014 passed in A.S.No.5 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Court, Krishnagiri, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2013 passed in O.S.No.106 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Krishnagiri.

¶12

For Appellant : M/s.P.Mani For Respondent : M/s.M.Rajeev Gandhi for M/s.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

The present Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2014 passed in A.S.No.5 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Court, Krishnagiri, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2013 passed in O.S.No.106 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Krishnagiri.

¶15

Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing on either side would submit that the matter has been settled between the parties and a Joint Memo of Compromise dated 31.08.2021, which is signed by the parties and duly attested by their respective counsel, has also been filed to that effect. The terms of Joint Memo of Compromise are extracted as follows:-

¶16

The appellant paid a sum of Rs.8,25,000/(Rupees Eight Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand) from the respondent as full and final settlement and the respondent do hereby acknowledge the receipt of the said amount Rs.8,25,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand).

¶17

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

¶18

The Respondent do hereby give up his right to get the sale deed executed with respect to the suit properties pursuant to the suit sale agreement dated 28.02.2007.

¶19

The respondent has returned the original title deed with respect to the suit properties (Settlement Deed dated 01.11.2004 executed by Ulbathbi in favour of the appellant Mehabobjohn and registered as Document No.1354 of 2004 in the office of Sub Registrar, Pochampalli) to the appellant and the appellant do hereby acknowledge the receipt of the same.

¶20

The respondent received the said sum of Rs.8,25,000/- ((Rupees Eight Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand) from the appellant in full and final settlement of all claims between the appellant and the respondent and his father and between the appellant's husband and the respondent and his father.

¶21

The respondent do hereby declare the he or his father has no money claim whatsoever either from the appellant or from her husband.

¶22

The respondent do hereby declare that he has no right or claim whatsoever, over the suit properties on the basis of the suit sale agreement or any other document.

¶23

The appellant can deal with the suit properties at her free will and encumber or alienate the suit properties at her discretion to any third party as the absolute owner.

¶24

The respondent do hereby agree that the above second appeal be allowed and the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2013 passed by the Prl. Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai, in O.S.No.106 of 2008 and the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Prl.District Court, Tiruvannamalai, in A.S.No.5 of 2014 be set aside and the said suit be dismissed.

¶25

The appellant and the respondent undertake and agree that they will not put forward any claim or initiate any proceedings whatsoever against each other with respect to the subject matter of the present litigation in future.

¶26

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTIES

¶27

fpU&;zfphp khtl;lk;. nghr;rk;gs;sp tl;lk. K:f;fk;gl;o

¶28

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

¶29

fpuhk (1) r/vz/.442 g[d;bra; Vf;fh; 3/44. ,jpy; r/vz;/440 f;F tlf;F. khug;g eha;f;fk;gl;o vy;iyf;F nkw;F. cph;kpsh epyj;jpw;F fpHf;F. gpahnu$hd; nth;fspd; epy';fSf;F bjw;F ,jd; kj;jpapy; 0/29 ½ brd;l; epyKk; ,Jt[k;.

¶30

(2) nkw;go fpuhk r/vz;/429 g[/br/ bcwf;lh; 1/30.5 njpy; cy;gj;gP tpw;w ghfj;jpw;F bjw;F. r/vz;/443 f;F tlf;F. r/vz/.445 f;F nkw;F. r/vz/.430 f;F fpHf;F bjd; kj;jpapy; 1 Vf;fh; 24 brd;l; epyKk; vJt[k;.

¶31

(3) nkw;go tl;lk;. khug;g eha;f;fk;gl;o fpuhk r/vz;/752 f;F g[.V 2.84 bcwf;lh; 1/15/0 bgw;w epyj;jpw;F. ,jpy; xzpf;F bjw;F. cph;kpsh gf;fj;jpw;F fpHf;F. nfrtft[z;lh; epyj;jpw;F tlf;F. rf;jp epyj;jpw;F nkw;F bjd; kj;jpapy; 1 Vf;fh; 79 brd;l; epyKk; ,itfSf;fhd khK:y; tz;o thfd tHpeil ghj;jpak; cs;glt[k;.

¶32

The said Joint Memo of Compromise is taken on file and the same shall form part of the decree. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is allowed in terms of the Joint Memo of Compromise. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

ENCL: Xerox Copy of Joint Memo of Compromise dated 31/08/2021

¶38

asi

¶39

¶40

The Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.

¶41

The Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri.

¶42

The Section Officer,

¶43

V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.

¶44

+1cc to Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran, Advocate, S.R.No.50586

¶45

S.A.No.1090 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶46

EV(CO) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ GN(16/11/2021)

Mehaboobjohn v. S. Baskar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehaboobjohn v. S. Baskar

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

Seethapathy Vs Arumugam

Dhandapani (Died) Vs Balaji

V.Baskar Vs Shanmugam

K.N.Eswaran Vs v.R.Jaya Rao (Died)

D.Emarose, Vs The General Manager

Arumugam Vs Marimuthu Ammal