Allowed

Periyasamy, v. Devika

Madras HC27 Mar 2024AS(MD)/19/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First appeal against a decree in a suit over shares in suit properties was allowed after the parties settled: the plaintiff acknowledged receiving Rs.50,00,000 by two cheques for her 1/3 share. The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree and dismissed the suit.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; judgment and decree dated 10.03.2016 in O.S.No.148 of 2013 set aside and the suit dismissed; no order as to costs.

Periyasamy, Vs Devika — Partition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

A.S(MD)No.19 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 27.03.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶6

A.S(MD)No.19 of 2017

¶7

Periyasamy ... Appellant/1st Defendant Vs. 1.Devika ... 1st Respondent/Plaintiff 2.Balamani 3.Lakshmi ... 2nd and 3rd Respondents/ 2nd and 3rd Defendants

¶8

Prayer : This Appeal Suit filed under Order 41, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC r/w Section 96 of CPC, to set aside the judgment and decree made in O.S.No. 148 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli, dated 10.03.2016, by allowing the First Appeal.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr.M.Ashok Kumar For R-1 : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar For R-2 & R-3 : No appearance

¶10

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

¶11

A.S(MD)No.19 of 2017

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

When the matter is taken up today for hearing, both the Counsels appearing for either parties, represented that the matter has been settled between the parties and the first respondent / plaintiff, namely, Devika received a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) from the appellant / first defendant by way of two cheques in lieu of her 1/3 share over the suit properties. The first respondent / plaintiff also appeared before this Court and represented that as per settlement between them, she received a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) through two cheques each for Rs.25,00,000/- from the appellant / first defendant towards her 1/3 share over the suit properties and also she has no objection to allow this appeal and prayed to allow this appeal. Further she also produced the xerox copies of cheques.

¶14

2. In view of the above said submissions and the settlement, this appeal suit stands allowed and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 148 of 2013 by the Trial Court, dated 10.03.2016 are set aside and the suit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

27.03.2024

¶16

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

¶17

A.S(MD)No.19 of 2017

¶18

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR

¶19

¶20

1.The II Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli.

¶21

2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Record Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶22

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

¶23

A.S(MD)No.19 of 2017

¶24

P. DHANABAL, J.

¶25

BTR

¶26

A.S(MD)No.19 of 2017

¶27

27.03.2024

¶28

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

Periyasamy, v. Devika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Periyasamy, v. Devika

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

Kalaiarasi Vs Esakkiammal

Amsammal, Vs the Special Tahsildar

Udaya Marthandan, Vs T.Selvi

Tuticorin Thermal Power Vs Esi Corporation

Tuticorin Thermal Power Vs Esi Corporation

Elizabeth Basker Vs the District Collector