Allowed

R.K.Naidu(Deceased) v. 1.SANTHAMMAL (Died)

Madras HC1 Sept 2022SA/1655/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In the second appeal regarding property division, the appellants filed a memorandum of compromise with the 16th respondent and other parties. The court allowed the appeal and directed that the compromise memo form part of the decree to settle all property claims.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal allowed. The compromise memorandum dated 30.08.2022 shall form part of the decree of the second appeal. No costs.

R.K.Naidu(Deceased) Vs 1.SANTHAMMAL (Died) — Partition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

S.A.No.1655 of 1999

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 01.09.2022

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

S.A.No.1655 of 1999

¶7

1.R.K.Naidu (Deceased) 2.M.R.Pattabi 3.R.PremChandar 4.R.Nandakumar 5.R.Sundararajan 6.Selvi.R.Latha

¶8

... Appellants

¶9

(Appellants 2 to 6 and RR12 to 14 brought on record as LR's of the deceased sole Appellant vide order of Court dated 19/03/2018 made in CMP. No.1728 to 1730/2018 in S.A. No.1655 of 1999)

¶10

¶11

1.Santhammal (died) 2.Saroja

¶12

3.Babu

¶13

4.Rani

¶14

5.Chellammal

¶15

6.Dilli

¶16

7.Venkatachalam

¶17

8.Mani

¶18

9.Rajathi

¶19

10.Rukku

¶20

11.Thirumangai

¶21

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

S.A.No.1655 of 1999

¶24

12.R.Nirmala 13.V.Kalpana 14.V.Shoba 15.M.K.Vasudevan 16.M.K.Ravichandrababu 17.M.K.Kasthuri 18.Sujatha ... Respondents (RR15 to 18 brought on record the LR's of the deceased 1^st respondent vide Court order dated 27/04/2022 made in CMP.No.5686 of 2022 in S.A.No.1655 of 1999).

¶25

Prayer: The Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 06.04.1998 passed in A.S.No.51 of 1991, on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruvallur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.02.1991 passed in O.S.No.679 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri.

¶26

For Appellants : Mr.M.S.Subramanian Respondent No.1 : died Respondent No.2 to 4 : given up Respondent Nos.5 to 11, 15, 17 to 18 : No appearance For Respondent No.16 : Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy

¶27

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

S.A.No.1655 of 1999

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The first defendant in O.S.No.679 of 1981 on the file of the District

¶32

Munsif Court, Ponneri, is the appellant before this Court.

¶33

2.During the pendency of the appeal, he died and his legal representatives had been brought on record as second to sixth appellants. The appellant R.K.Naidu is the brother of the first respondent Santhammal.

¶34

3.They entered into a litigation with respect to six items of the properties. As of now, items 1 to 4 and item 6 had already been sold and the appellant had purchased the share of Santhammal but it must also be mentioned that Santhammal had the benefit of a settlement deed, which had been executed in her favour by her mother and therefore, with respect to the suit schedule properties, she claimed an undivided 2/3^rd share and her brother R.K.Naidu first defendant was said to be entitled to the balance 1/3^rd share.

¶35

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

S.A.No.1655 of 1999

¶38

4.The Suit in O.S.No.679 of 1981 was finally disposed of on 18.02.1991 nearly after a decade and thereafter, a further appeal was filed in A.S.No.51 of 1991 before the Sub-Court at Thiruvallur and proceedings therein took another seven years and it was disposed of on 06.04.1998.

¶39

5.The present second appeal had been pending before this Court more than two decades. Finally, with efforts taken by the learned counsels, settlement had been reached among the parties. The appellants have signed the memorandum of compromise, which had been presented before this Court today.

¶40

6.The first respondent Santhammal had executed a settlement deed in favour of the 16^th respondent/her son M.K.Ravichandrababu. In effect by this compromise, the settlement deed dated 14.08.2017 which had been registered as document No.5002 before the Sub Registrar, Arni is

¶41

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

S.A.No.1655 of 1999

¶44

recognized and it is hoped that no further claims would be made by the parties either questioning the settlement deed or bringing up any further issues with respect to the division of the properties.

¶45

7.The 16^th respondent is present in Court. The learned counsel for

¶46

the appellants and the learned counsel for the 16^th respondent are also present.

¶47

8.I fervently hope that this compromise is also to the knowledge of

¶48

other respondents. It is so assured by the learned counsels. The memorandum of compromise shall form part of the decree. Item 5 in the suit schedule is item 1 in the A Schedule viz., 2/3^rd share of 5.19 acres in Kanllur Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District. There are several other properties, which are not subject matter of the suit, but it is represented that this compromise memo covers all the properties therein.

¶49

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

S.A.No.1655 of 1999

¶52

9.In the Court bundle, the following endorsements has also been

¶53

made by 16^th respondent, 2^nd and 3^rd appellants.

¶54

“Admitted the compromise memo dated 30.08.2022

¶55

sd/- 01/09/2022 M.K.Ravichandra babu 16^th Respondent.

¶56

Admitted the compromise memo dated 30.08.2022

¶57

sd/- 01/09/2022 R.Premchander 3^rd appellant. Sd/- 01/09/2022 2^nd appellant.”

¶58

10.The second appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise memo.

¶59

The compromise memo shall form part of the decree. No costs.

¶60

Index:Yes/No 01.09.2022 Internet:Yes/No sms To 1.The Sub-Court, Tiruvallur. 2.The District Munsif Court, Ponneri. 3.V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

¶61

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

S.A.No.1655 of 1999

¶64

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.,

¶65

sms

¶66

S.A.No.1655 of 1999

¶67

01.09.2022

¶68

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶69

R.K.Naidu(Deceased) v. 1.SANTHAMMAL (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.K.Naidu(Deceased) v. 1.SANTHAMMAL (Died)

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

C.Selvan Vs v.a.Mariappan Alias Marimuthu

Selvam & Another Vs Chinnappana @ Chinnammal (Died)

Selvam & Another Vs P.Chellamuthu (died)

Lakshmi Vs Chellayee[Died]

Sayeetha Bi Vs Abdul Raheem

M.K.Shanmugam (Deceased) Vs K.a.Muthusamy (Deeased)