C.S.No.591 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
C.S.No.591 of 2013
1.B.Rajakumari
2.A.G.Soundararajan
3.Kalawathi ... Plaintiffs
vs.
1.Primala
2.Deepak kumar
3.Lavanya
4.Sivakumar
5.Ganesh
6.P.S.Deva Sagayam
7.Basheer
8.Nirmala
9.A.Hariharan
10.The Branch Manager,
ING Vysya Bank,
Audiappan Naicken Street,
Chennai – 600 001.
11.The Branch Manager,
Syndicate Bank,
Flower Bazaar Branch,
Govindappa Naicken Street,
Chennai – 600 001.
12.Alwarsami
13.Lakshmi
14.Baskar
15.Muthulakshmi ... Defendants
(Defendants 12 to 15 are impleaded
as per order dated 26.02.2015 in
application no.6914 of 2014)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
C.S.No.591 of 2013
Prayer: Civil Suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure,
to pass a judgment and decree a) Dividing the suit schedule mentioned
properties into 4 equal parts by metes and bounds and allotting 1/4th share to
each of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 1/4th share jointly to defendants 1 to 3 and
(b) granting injunction restraining the defendants 4 and 5 from collecting the
rents from Defendants 6 to 9. (c) granting injunction restraining the
Defendants 4 and 5 from dealing with bank accounts and locker in 10 th and
11th defendants bank morefully sell out as schedule V and VI in the plaint.
(d) awarding costs.
For Plaintiffs : M/s.D.Rajagopal
S.Vijayalakshmi
For 4th Defendant : Mr.Guru Dhananjay
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr.D.Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and Mr.Guru Dhananjay, learned counsel for the fourth defendant.
2.Mr.A.G.Soundararajan second plaintiff is present. Plaintiffs 1 and 3 and fourth defendant are not present. Their counsel are present.
3.It is reported that defendants 1 to 3 and defendants 5 to 11 were already set ex-parte. On 22.08.2016, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs made an endorsement that 'defendants 12 to 15 given up. They are tenants'. Now a compromise had been entered into between the plaintiffs https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4 C.S.No.591 of 2013 and the fourth defendant and the terms of compromise has been reduced into writing in the form of a memorandum of compromise. Both parties pray that the suit to be decreed in terms of the memorandum of compromise.
4.In view of the settlement of disputes between the parties by entering into a compromise, this Court accepts the memorandum of compromise entered into between the parties and the suit is decreed in terms of the memorandum of compromise. The memorandum of compromise shall form part of the decree. No Costs.
06.09.2022 sli Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4 C.S.No.591 of 2013 G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J.
sli C.S.No.591 of 2013 06.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4