G.Ravi v. Bhuvaneshwari
Case brief
What is this about?
Court approved a compromise memo in a civil suit regarding partition of immovable properties and a family business. Parties settled shares in flats and a medical shop, with directions to return jewels and open savings accounts as security. Related applications were closed.
What did the court decide?
Civil Suit decreed as per Compromise Memo; Connected applications closed; Refund of Court Fees granted to Plaintiff.
What the court decided
C.S.No.46 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.10.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Civil Suit No.46 of 2020 and
Original Application Nos.80 & 81 of 2020
G.Ravi
... Plaintiff
versus
1.Smt.Bhuvaneshwari 2.G.Thiyagarajan
3.G.Jayakumar
... Defendants
Prayer: The Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC., seeking to pass a preliminary decree for effecting partition of the suit immovable properties morefully described in the Schedules A, B, C & D into three equal parts and passing a final decree allotting one third share to the plaintiff from and out of the suit immovable properties in Schedule A, B, C & D and directing the defendants 2 and 3 to render true and proper audited accounts and as submitted to income tax authorities regarding the business M/s.Guna & Co., and directing the defendants 2 & 3 to pay the plaintiff his one third share in the value of the business M/s.Guna & Co., together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as on the date of death of A.K.Gunakaran i.e., from
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to approve the compromise memo regarding partition of suit properties and quantification of business shares.
Whether to grant relief on court fees given the compromise and lack of effective trial.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
G.Ravi
- respondent
Bhuvaneshwari
- respondent
G.Thiyagarajan
- respondent
G.Jayakumar
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court