Ramachandran and 8 Others Vs Beeman (Deceased) and 3 Others — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ramachandran and 8 Others Vs Beeman (Deceased) and 3 Others — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both suits (C.S.No.852 of 2009 and C.S.No.677 of 2010) decreed in terms of the memorandum of compromise; the terms of the memorandum of compromise form part of the decree; no costs; connected applications closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiffs 1 to 9 in C.S.No.852 of 2009 are the real owners of the suit schedule property (declaration of title). +5 more

Ratio / Principle

As both sides' counsels filed terms of compromise and both parties agreed to those terms, both suits stand decreed in terms of the memorandum of compromise.

Key takeaways

The terms of the memorandum of compromise shall form part of the decree; no costs awarded; connected applications closed.ratio¶60
The parties were identified through their counsel and agreed to the terms of compromise; the plaintiff in C.S.No.677 of 2010 stated she had taken possession of the suit property pursuant to the sale deed, which was admitted by the plaintiffs and defendants in both suits, and those terms of compromise were recorded.ratio¶56
Consequent to the death of the first defendant in C.S.No.852 of 2009, the amendment recording plaintiffs 1 to 9 as his legal heirs (per the earlier order dated 14.11.2025) was carried out and acknowledged by this Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Dr. Justice R.N. Manjula) dated 19-11-2025 disposing of two cross suits by consent. C.S.No.852 of 2009: nine plaintiffs (children of Beeman) sought declaration of title to the suit schedule property, declarations that the power of attorney dated 24.5.2006 executed by the first defendant (Beeman, since deceased) in favour of defendants 2 and 3 (adjudicated by SRO, Adyar on 2.6.2006) and the sale deed dated 05.01.2007 (Document No.30/2007, SRO Adyar) executed by defendants 2 and 3 in favour of the fourth defendant were null and void, non-est and not binding on the plaintiffs, together with a permanent injunction against encumbrance/alienation. After the first defendant's death, plaintiffs 1 to 9 were recorded as his legal heirs (order dated 14/11/2025 in memo dated 13.11.2025); defendants 1 and 2 were set ex parte. C.S.No.677 of 2010: S.Prema (fourth defendant in C.S.No.852 of 2009) sought vacant possession of A and B schedule properties from L.Logammal and L.Chandrakumar and restraint on further construction. Both sides filed terms of compromise; the parties appeared and were identified (ninth plaintiff in C.S.No.852 of 2009 and second defendant in C.S.No.677 of 2010 via video conference); the plaintiff in C.S.No.677 of 2010 stated she had taken possession pursuant to the sale deed, which was admitted by the parties. HELD: both suits decreed in terms of the memorandum of compromise, whose terms form part of the decree; no costs; connected applications (A.Nos.4191 & 4192 of 2024) closed. Disposal by consent — the Court recorded no adjudication on the merits of title or the validity of the power of attorney or sale deed.