The plaintiffs sought a preliminary and final decree for partition of suit property. During the hearing, counsel for the plaintiffs stated that the parties had settled the issue out of court and sought permission to withdraw the suit. The court recorded the submission and dismissed the suit as withdrawn.
Suit dismissed as withdrawn.
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: 19.12.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
CS.No.98 of 2016
1.N.Gurulakshmi
Versus
1.N. Prabhakar (deceased)
Prayer:
Plaint under Order IV, Rule 1 of O.S. Read with Order VII Rule of 1 & 2 CPC ., prays to pass a decree
a) granting preliminary decree by declaring 5/7th shares of the plaintiffs' shares on the plaint suit schedule property described hereunder;
b) granting final decree by appointing an advocate Commissioner to divide the suit property by metes and bounds and allot 5/7th shares on the suit schedule property granting decree for mesne profits and
c) award costs of the suit.
For Plaintiffs : M/s.Janani Shankar
A.A.NAKKIRAN.,J.
gv
JUDGEMENT
When the matter came up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has stated that both the parties have settled the issue out of Court. Hence, he seeks permission of this court to withdraw this suit and he has also
made an endorsement in the case bundle to that effect.
costs.
Gv 19.12.2024
CS.No.98 of 2016
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N.Gurulakshmi
N. Prabhakar
A.A.NAKKIRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
