Civil suit for partition of immovable property in Chennai and mandatory/permanent injunctions. The matter was settled amicably out of court, leading to the dismissal of the suit with no costs and refund of court fees.
Suit dismissed as settled out of court; no costs; court fee refunded.
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.
C.S.No.801 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
C.S.No.801 of 2016
and
O.A No.959 of 2016
1.David Joseph Noronha 2.Christopher Noronha (The 2nd defendant was transposed as the 2nd plaintiff herein as per order dated 14.09.2023 made in A.No.3791 of 2023)
.. Plaintiffs
Vs.
Jean Menezes .. Defendant
Prayer: Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code and Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to pass a judgement an decree against the defendant
a) directing the defendants to partition the suit schedule mentioned property measuring 3262.06 sq.ft. situate in Door No.85(Old No.248) Kilpauk Garden Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010 and morefully described in the schedule written by metes and bounds and allot to the
C.S.No.801 of 2016
plaintiff his share of the property.
b) on the failure of the defendants to partition the suit schedule mentioned property and allot the same to the plaintiff to appoint an advocate commissioner to divide the suit schedule mentioned property by metes and bounds and allot to the plaintiff his share therein.
c) to grant a decree of mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to remove the fence erected east to west on the northern side and the fence north to south encroaching into the plaintiffs portion of the suit schedule mentioned property.
d) granting decree of permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant or her legal heirs, legal representatives, agents, servants or any person or persons claiming through or under or in trust for her from alienating, encumbering, dealing with or changing the topography of the suit schedule mentioned property in any manner whatsoever.
e) for costs.
For Plaintiffs : Mr.R.Swarnavel for P1 Mr.Siddarth Bahetty for P2 For defendant : Mr.Nirmal Roy Sanjeevi
C.S.No.801 of 2016
JUDGMENT
When the matter came up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs 1 & 2 submitted that the matter has been amicably settled out of Court between the parties and the learned counsel for the 1st plaintiff and the learned counsel for the 2nd plaintiff have also made separate endorsement to that effect in the court bundle.
the learned counsel for the plaintiffs 1 & 2, this Civil Suit is dismissed as settled out of Court. No costs. The Court Fee is ordered to be refunded as per law. Consequently, connected application is closed.
14.11.2024
Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order uma
C.S.No.801 of 2016
A.A.NAKKIRAN,J.
uma
C.S.No.801 of 2016 and O.A No.959 of 2016
C.S.No.801 of 2016
14.11.2024
1 provisions across 1 enactments
David Joseph Noronha
Christopher Noronha
Jean Menezes
A.A.NAKKIRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
