Chenchu Nara Hari v. v.Ravi
Case brief
What is this about?
Two second appeals over property were settled between the parties by a Memo of Compromise dividing the suit property. The High Court found nothing illegal in the compromise and disposed of the appeals in its terms.
What did the court decide?
Appeals disposed of in terms of the Memo of Compromise; compromise decree and plan form part of the decree; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
What the court decided
S.A.Nos.391 and 392 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.03.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
S.A.Nos.391 and 392 of 2013 and
M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2013
1.Chenchu Nara Hari
2.Jayammal
3.Murali
.. Appellants in
S.A.No.391 of 2013
- 1.Chenchu Nara Hari
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Chenchu Nara Hari
- appellant
Jayammal
- appellant
Murali
- respondent
V.Ravi
- respondent
The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court