Allowed¶27

Gita v. Rosabel Kirupakaran(Deceased)

Madras HC22 Jun 2026AS/47/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; A.S.No.47 of 2023; Appeal Suit under Section 96 CPC; compromise decree; Joint Memorandum of Compromise dated 16.03.2026; appeal decreed in terms of compromise; memorandum part of final decree; no order as to costs; underlying suit O.S.No.4714 of 2019 dismissed 11.04.2022 by XXI Additional City Civil Court, Allikulam at Chennai; first respondent deceased; cause title amended 08.01.2026 in C.M.P. No.27256; C.V. Karthikeyan J; K. Rajasekar J; decided 22.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

Appeal suit decreed in terms of the Joint Memorandum of Compromise dated 16.03.2026; memorandum taken on record and to form part of the final decree; no order as to costs. ¶27

Gita Vs Rosabel Kirupakaran(Deceased) — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

A.S.No.47 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.06.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶7

A.S.No.47 of 2023

¶8

Gita

¶9

Mrs.K.Punitha

¶10

... Appellants

¶11

vs.

¶12

Mrs.Rosabel Kirupakaran (Deceased) W/o.Late Mr.R.Kirupakaran

¶13

Mrs.Vinita Anand W/o.Late Mr.Raj K Anand

¶14

Mr.Ranjit Daniel S/o.Late Mr.Raj K.Anand ... Respondents

¶15

(Cause title amended vide Court order dated 08.01.2026 made in C.M.P. No.27256 in A.S.No.47 of 20230

¶16

Prayer:Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment dated 11.04.2022 passed by the XXI Additional City Civil Court, Allikulam at Chennai dismissing O.S.No.4714 of 2019.

¶17

1/4

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

A.S.No.47 of 2023

¶20

For Appellant : Mr.K.Elango For Respondent : Dr.Vivekha Pon for M/s.S.Kamalesh Kannan for R2 and R3

¶21

R1-Died

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J ]

¶24

The appellant and the respondent exercising prudence have entered into Joint Memorandum of Compromise and the same dated 16.03.2026 had been presented before this Court. It had been signed by both the appellants and the respondent and also by their respective counsel.

¶25

The first appellant is present through videoconferencing and the second appellant is not able to come owing to her son being admitted in hospital. First respondent died and Respondents 2 and 3 are present in Court. The learned counsel on both sides are also present in Court.

¶26