The suit for declaration, partition, and injunction was compromised between the parties. The Court recorded the Memo of Understanding and decreed the suit in terms of the compromise.
Suit decreed in terms of the Memo of Understanding entered between the parties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 21.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
C.S.No. 25 of 2016
1.K.P. Ramachandra Menon( deceased)
Amended as per order dt 07.03.2016 in A.No.1147/2016
Prayer:
Plaint under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with order VII, Rule 1 of CPC., prays for judgment and decree,
i) declaring that the Settlement Deed dated 18.06.2014 registered as document bearing No.2269 of 2014 on the file of SRO, Kodambakkam executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd and 3rd defendants is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs.
ii) directing the division of the Schedule property in to four shares by metes and bounds and allotting ¼ share each to the plaintiffs 2 to 4 herein and consequently for appointment of Commissioner for effecting partition in terms of the preliminary decree and putting the plaintiffs 2 to 4 in possession of their respective ¼ share in the schedule mentioned property;
iii) permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents
or anybody claiming under or on behalf of the defendant herein any manner dealing with the schedule property either by alienating, leasing mortgaging or in any other manner and
iv) to pay the cost of the suit.
For Plaintiffs : M/s.K.V.Sundarajan
For Defendants : M/s.A.V.Bharathi
JUDGEMENT
When this matter is taken up for hearing today, learned counsel
for the defendants submitted that the third defendant namely Minor Diya Madhu, represented by her mother and natural guardian Mrs.Priya Madhu, has attained the age of majority now and hence she seeks to remove the name of the guardian for the 3rd defendant. In proof of the same, she has filed the birth certificate of the 3rd defendant. She has also made an endorsement to that effect.
for the defendants submitted that this matter has been compromised between the parties. Pursuant to the same, they have filed a Memo of Understanding dated 20.10.2024 which has been duly signed by them and their respective parties.
learned counsel for the defendants are recorded.
Gv 21.10.2024
(1/2)
A.A.NAKKIRAN.,J.
gv
C.S.No. 25 of 2016
21.10.2024
(1/2)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A.A.NAKKIRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
