Disposed

Duraivel v. M. Geethanjali

Madras HC17 Jul 2026AS/675/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a trial court judgment concerning a house property was settled: appellants undertook to pay Rs.40,00,000 to the first respondent within six months and released all rights in Item No.17 of the suit schedule property to her. Appeal disposed of per the undertaking affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed per settlement: appellants to pay Rs.40,00,000 within six months to first respondent and release Item No.17 to her; decree revived on default.

Duraivel Vs M. Geethanjali — Partition | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

A.S.No.675 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :17.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶8

A.S.No.675 of 2017 &

¶9

C.M.P.No.21240 of 2017

¶10

1.Duraivel

¶11

Raghuraman ... Appellants

¶12

Versus

¶13

M.Geethanjali

¶14

M.Indumathi Rosi Bai (Died)

¶15

Nalini

¶16

The Sub-Registrar Walaja

¶17

Vellore District ... Respondents

¶18

Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2017 on the file of Court of II Additional District and Session Judge, Vellore @ Ranipet, Vellore District.

¶19

For Appellant : Ms.Sri Ranjini for Mr.T.P.Prabakaran

¶20

For Respondent : Mr.V.Manoharan for R1

¶21

1/5

¶22

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

¶23

A.S.No.675 of 2017

¶24

Mr.M.Hemanth Kumar Government counsel for R4

¶25

R2 and R3- No Appearance

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J .)

¶28

When the appeal was listed on 24.06.2026, 1st and 2nd appellants/1st and 2nd defendants have filed separate Affidavit of Undertakings dated 24.06.2026 agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.25 lakhs to the first respondent/plaintiff and releasing their right in respect of Item No.17 of the suit schedule property in Door No.7/1, T.T.S No.1438, Soornachetty Street, Walajapet admeasuring 7766 sq.ft and residential house therein in favour of the first respondent. The affidavits are taken on record,

¶29

Again when the matter was posted on 30.06.2026, the first respondent stated before this Court that she needs some more amount to be deposited and some jewels also to be given to her for her security. Therefore, the said Affidavit of undertakings were not given effect to and the matter was directed to be posted today under the same caption "For Reporting Settlement".

¶30

2/5

¶31

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

¶32

A.S.No.675 of 2017 3. Today, the second appellant/second defendant is present before this

¶33

Court. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that first appellant/first defendant is admitted in the hospital and hence, he could not appear before this Court today.

¶34

On enquiry, the second appellant/ second defendant stated that he is ready to pay a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- within a period of six months by way of a Demand Draft drawn in favour of first respondent / plaintiff. He would also submit that he will not claim any right whatsoever in the house bearing Door No.7/1, T.T.S No.1438, Soornachetty Street, Walajapet admeasuring 7766 sq.ft, situated in Item No.17 of the suit schedule property, which is presently in occupation of the first respondent / Plaintiff.

¶35

The first respondent / plaintiff is also present in Court and has agreed to receive a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- [Rupees Forty Lakhs only] and take Item No.17 of the suit schedule property as her absolute property. The second appellant has also made an endorsement to the above effect in the case file, which has been endorsed by the learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for first respondent.

¶36

In view of the fact that respondents 2 and 3 remained ex parte , the settlement arrived at between the parties is binding on the appellants and

¶37

3/5

¶38

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

¶39

A.S.No.675 of 2017

¶40

first respondent alone.

¶41

In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this appeal stands disposed of in terms of Affidavit of Undertakings of the appellants dated 24.06.2026. The Affidavit of Undertakings shall form part of the decree. It is made clear that if the amount is not paid as stated before this

¶42

Court by the appellants, the judgment and decree of the trial Court shall stand revived. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.] 17.07.2026

¶44

Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶45

gpa

¶46

¶47

The II Additional District and Session Judge Vellore @ Ranipet, Vellore District

¶48

The Section Officer VR Section Madras High Court

¶49

4/5

¶50

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

¶51

A.S.No.675 of 2017 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J., AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.,

¶52

gpa

¶53

A.S.No.675 of 2017

¶54

17.07.2026

¶55

5/5

¶56

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

Duraivel v. M. Geethanjali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Duraivel v. M. Geethanjali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sumathi

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs R.Lalitha

Chelladurai(Died) Vs Shahul Hameed

The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs M. Sasikala

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs G.Rani

The Manager Vs Senthilkumar Narayanasamy