S.A.Nos.1205 and 1206 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 16.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
S.A.Nos.1205 and 1206 of 2013
1. K.L.Jain (Died)
2. Ashok Kumar Jain
(2nd appellant impleaded as Legatee of
deceased sole appellant vide order of
Court dated 26.08.2022 made in
CMP.No.18650 and 18912 of 2021 in
SA.No.1205 & 1206 of 2013)
.. Appellants in both appeals
Versus
M.Kuppusamy .. Respondent in S.A.No.1205 of 2013
1.M.Kuppursamy
2. D.Pughazhendhi
3. M.Gandhirajan .. Respondents in S.A.No.1206 of 2013 Prayer in S.A.No.1205 of 2013:- Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2011 passed in A.S.No.154 of 2003 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2002 passed in O.S.No.10549 of 1996 on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/8 S.A.Nos.1205 and 1206 of 2013 Prayer in S.A.No.1206 of 2013:- Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2011 passed in A.S.No.155 of 2003 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2002 passed in O.S.No.10750 of 1996 on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Appellants : K.Bijay Sundar in both cases For R1 : Mr.R.Thiagarajan in both cases COMMON JUDGMENT Today, when the appeals are taken up for hearing, both the appellant and the contesting respondent along with their respective learned counsel on record are present.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on both sides that the matter has been amicable settled between the parties. They have filed a memo of compromise dated 02.09.2022 signed by both the appellant and the contesting respondent to that effect.
3. This Court perused the said Memo of Compromise and also enquired the parties about the factum of compromise and the terms of the same, who have admitted the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8 S.A.Nos.1205 and 1206 of 2013
4. For better understanding, the terms of the said Memo of Compromise read as follows:
"(i) In the above proceedings the contesting respondent is only M.Kuppusamy and the other respondents in the above proceedings are only formal parties and have also been set exparte, even before the Trial Court and hence they have been given up in the above Second Appeal.
(ii) It is submitted that the Appellant, Ashok Kumar Jain, is the only sole legatee of the Deceased Appellant, late K.L.Jain herein, claiming under the will dated 26.10.2018 executed by the K.L.Jain and the said Ashok Kumar Jain is representing the deceased original appellant as the Appellant herein.
(iii) It is submitted that the contesting respondent, M.Kuppusamy had no objection in C.M.P.No.18650 of 2021 in S.A.No.1205 of 2013 and C.M.P.No.18912 of 2021 in S.A.No.1206 of 2013, being allowed thereby Ashok Kumar Jain being brought on record as the legal representative, who is also the only legatee of the deceased appellant as stated supra. The said CMPs have also been ordered accordingly and the said appellant brought on record by order dated 25.08.2022 by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8 S.A.Nos.1205 and 1206 of 2013
(iv) The contesting respondent submits that a decree for permanent injunction as sought for by the deceased original appellant, now represented by the appellant, Ashok Kumar Jain shall be granted as prayed for in the O.S.No.10549 of 1996.
(v) The contesting respondent submits that the suit filed for permanent injunction as sought for by him in O.S.No.10750 of 1996 is not pressed and the suit may be accordingly dismissed.
(vi) The contesting respondent submits that the decree may be passed for the property more fully described in the schedule to the plaint in O.S.No.10549 of 1996 in favour of Appellant, Ashok Kumar Jain, namely, the property more fully described in the schedule to the present memo of compromise.
(vii) The contesting respondent has received a sum of Rs.15 Lakhs (Rupees Fifteen lakhs only) by way of (i) a demand draft bearing No.123302 dated 07.09.2022 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Kilpauk branch for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- in full and final settlement of all his claims including the claim, in respect of the property described in the schedule to the plaint in O.S.No.10549 of 1996 and shall have no claim, demand or outstanding, past, present or future against the Appellant and relinquishes all his rights, title and interest thereon.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8 S.A.Nos.1205 and 1206 of 2013
(viii) The contesting respondent agrees to sign all such other document(s), deed(s), form(s), declaration(s) that may be required in future by all the concerned authorities if so required, by the Appellant for more fully assuring his right, title and interest of the Appellant in respect of the suit property more fully described in the schedule to the plaint in O.S.No.10549 of 1996 and hereunder.
(ix) The contesting respondent hereby declares that the flat No.6/2C in the ground floor as morefully described in the schedule to the plaint filed by him in O.S.No.10750 of 1996, is not in existence and the identity of the same is confusing. In the said circumstances, the contesting respondent has given up his claim, right, title and interest, if any and hence has no claim of whatsoever nature in respect of the said flat including the undivided share of land purported to have been purchased by him in terms of the sale deed dated 11.12.1991 and registered as Document No.4248 of 1991 executed by his vendor in favour of M.Kuppuswamy, the contesting respondent.
(x) The Contesting respondent has handed over all the original title deeds in respect of the property described in the schedule to the plaint in O.S.No.10750 of 1996 including the Memorandum of Agreement dated 06.08.1991, sale deed dated 11.12.1991, Deed of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8 S.A.Nos.1205 and 1206 of 2013 mortgage dated 11.02.1992 and discharge of mortgage receipts executed in favour of President of India at the time of executing this memo.
(xi) The contesting respondent agrees for the appellant to have this memo of compromise duly registered at his own cost at the office of the concerned sub Registrar in accordance with law, without any further reference to him and that he has no objection for the same to be registered.
(xii) The Compromise Memo shall be duly registered in the office of the SRO, Virugambakkam at the own cost of appellant and Registration shall be done within 30 days from the date of obtaining the Certified Copy of Judgment.
(xiii) Both the parties have no mutual claim of any nature as against each other."
5.In view of the above, the second appeals stand disposed of, in terms of the memorandum of compromise arrived at between the parties.
The memo of compromise dated 02.09.2022 filed by the parties shall form part of the decree. Registry is directed to refund the court fee to the Appellant as per law. No costs.
16.09.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8 S.A.Nos.1205 and 1206 of 2013 To
1. The VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.
2. The I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
3. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/8 S.A.Nos.1205 and 1206 of 2013 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J., av S.A.Nos.1205 and 1206 of 2013 16.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/8