Partly allowed

K.S.Sriram v. Sree Venkateshraj R.K

Madras HC1 Aug 2024AS/974/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a decree in an original suit regarding property division. The court recorded a compromise between parties allocating specific schedules of property to appellants and respondents, and modified the lower court's decree accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Decree modified in accordance with the terms of compromise dated 01.08.2024 regarding division of 'A', 'B', and 'C' schedule properties.

K.S.Sriram Vs Sree Venkateshraj R.K — Partition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

A.S. No. 974 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶6

A.S. No. 974 of 2020 and C.M.P. No. 13709 of 2020

¶7

1. K.S.Sriram 2. K.P.Babu 3. N.Kumaravel 4. K.R.Subramaniam 5. P.Palaniyammal ... Appellants/Defendants 8 to 12

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1. Sree Venkateshraj R.K. 2. Rajammal ... Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶10

3. K.R.Chokkalingam 4. The Branch Manager Canara Bank Vaiguntham Branch Sankari Taluk, Salem District. 5. Chinnannan 6. Raju 7. Muthayee @ Ponniyammal (died) [R1 to R3 and R8 who were already on record, are recorded as legal representatives of deceased R7, vide order of Court dated 01.04.2024 made in A.S. No. 974 of 2024 and C.M.P. No. 13709 of 2020. Memo is filed on 04.03.2024 is recorded]

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 4

¶12

A.S. No. 974 of 2020

¶13

Velayee

¶14

8. Velayee ...Respondents/Defendants 2 to 7

¶15

PRAYER: T his Appeal is filed under Order 41 Rule 1 and Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.221 of 2013 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Salem dated 07.09.2019.

¶16

For Appellant : Mr. R.Marudhachalamurthy For Respondents : Mr. D.Rajkumar (R1 & R2) Mr. M.Mohan (R3) Mrs. T.Hemalatha (R4) R5 – R8 (No appearance)

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The case was taken up and the second respondent,

¶19

viz., Rajammal, appeared through video-conferencing along with an Aadhar Card and the learned counsel, Mr. D.Rajkumar, identified the person, who appeared through video-conference as the second respondent.

¶20

As per the Memo of Compromise filed, 'A' schedule goes to

¶21

and in favour of Defendants 8 to 10, 'B' schedule goes to and in favour of Defendants 8 to 12, 'C' schedule is the property wherein 'A' and 'B'

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 4

¶23

A.S. No. 974 of 2020

¶24

schedules are excluded goes to the plaintiff. The schedules are given in the memo of compromise, which is taken on file, and the same is attested by the learned counsel for the appellants and also by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶25

The decree granted in O.S. No. 221 of 2013 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Salem is hereby modified in accordance with the terms of compromise to the limited extent. The appeal suit is partly allowed to the limited extent as indicated above and the memo of compromise dated 01.08.2024 shall form part of the decree. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

01.08.2024

Index :Yes/No Maya

The III Additional District Judge Salem.

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 4

¶31

A.S. No. 974 of 2020

¶32

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

¶33

Maya

¶34

A.S. No. 974 of 2020 and C.M.P. No. 13709 of 2020

¶35

01.08.2024

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 4

K.S.Sriram v. Sree Venkateshraj R.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.Sriram v. Sree Venkateshraj R.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Vs R.Chockalingam Pillai(Deceased)1.Smt.Kalavathi

Kaliammal Vs C.Subramaniyan

Minor.Sujitha Vs Nachimuthu Gounder (Died)

Rajammal Vs Ilayarani

R. Subramaniam Vs R. Arulmozhi

M.Chinnannan Vs M.Karuppannan