Allowed

Rakkiyappan, v. C.Ponnappan (Died)

Madras HC20 Oct 2023SA/810/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Second Appeal concerning specific performance, the Madras High Court disposed of the matter based on an amicable settlement agreement executed between the parties. The court ordered the removal of the charge created over the property as per the settlement terms.

What did the court decide?

Charge created over the property to be removed; Second Appeal disposed of as per terms of Settlement Agreement dated 11.08.2023.

Rakkiyappan, Vs C.Ponnappan (Died) — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

S.A. No. 810 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.10.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

S.A. No. 810 of 2011 and M.P.No. 1 of 2011

Rakkiyappan

.. Appellant

Versus

C.Ponnappan (died)

1 P.Perumal

¶12

2 P.Prithiviraj

¶13

3 P.Venkatachalam

¶14

(R2 & R3 to declare as major and discharge guardian 4^th Respondent Mother viz. P.Chandra as per order dated 22.06.2017 made in C.M.P. Nos. 9180 9181 of 2017)

¶15

4 P.Chandra

¶16

5 Baggiam

¶17

6 Sengammal 7 Chandra

¶18

8 Jambu

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

1/5

¶21

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

¶22

S.A. No. 810 of 2011

¶23

Prayer :-

¶24

Prayer :- Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No. 14 of 2009 dated 30.11.2010 on the file of Addl. District Court, (FTC No.II), Salem partly allowed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.29 of 2007 dated 06.01.2009 on the file of Sub-Court, Mettur in so far as the prayer for specific performance.

¶25

For Appellant : Ms.D.Sahithya for Mr.M.Elango For Respondents : R1 – died No appearance – R6 & R8 Mr.P.Sivakumar for R2, R3, R4, R5 & R7

¶26

JUDGEMENT

¶27

Today, when the matter taken up for hearing, Rakkiyappan, appellant

¶28

herein appeared along with his counsel. The 1^st respondent in the suit viz.,

¶29

2/5

¶30

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

¶31

S.A. No. 810 of 2011

¶32

C.Ponnappan died. The 1^st respondent herein P.Perumal, who was bedridden and other respondents 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 appeared along with their counsel. Already this matter was referred to mediation and the report from the Mediation Centre is received. Before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court, settlement was arrived amicably between the parties and a settlement agreement was executed by both parties. The copy of settlement agreement enclosed in the typed set of papers was perused.

¶33

As per the terms of settlement agreement, both parties have settled

¶34

the issue and the respondents 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 have agreed to settle the claim amount of Rs.11,50,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs fifty thousand only). Accordingly, the appellant had received a part of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) on 11.08.2023 and they have agreed to pay remaining amount within a period of three months from the date of settlement agreement. So, after the said settlement, the charge created over the property is ordered to be removed. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is disposed of as per terms and conditions of Settlement Agreement. The said Settlement Agreement dated 11.08.2023 shall form

¶35

3/5

¶36

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

¶37

S.A. No. 810 of 2011

¶38

part and parcel of the judgment. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶39

20.10.2023

¶40

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No rpp

¶41

¶42

Addl. District Judge, Addl. District Court (FTC No.II) Salem.

¶43

Sub-Judge, Sub-Court, Mettur.

¶44

4/5

¶45

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

¶46

S.A. No. 810 of 2011

¶47

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rpp

S.A. No. 810 of 2011

20.10.2023

5/5

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

Rakkiyappan, v. C.Ponnappan (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakkiyappan, v. C.Ponnappan (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

Diagou Mudaliar Trust Vs S.Padmini

G.Devadoss Vs S.Ravichandran

D. Srinivasan Vs F.X. Dany

R.Srividya Vs Sathyalakshmi @ Lakshmi

Dhakshinamoorthy Vs M.S. Manohar

Jayammal Vs Duraisamy