Madras High Court
D.Veerabadran vs R.Senthil Kumar on 1 December, 2021
A.S.No.780 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
A.S.No.780 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No.21130 of 2018
1.D.Veerabadran
2.N.Premavathy .. Appellants
Versus
1.R.Senthil Kumar
2.D.Sekkizhar @ Ravi .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the
judgment and decree dated 27.04.2018 passed in O.S.No.10 of 2014 by the District Court
No.II, Kancheepuram.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Sitharthan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Krishnaswamy
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)
Before the Court below, the appellants herein are the defendants 2 and 3 and
respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and third respondent is the first defendant. The
plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.10 of 2014 with the following prayer:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.780 of 2018
(a) for a partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds and for allotment of
their 7/30th share each in all the suit properties and for separate possession;
(b) for declaration that the release deed dated 24.08.2010 alleged to have been
executed by Kumudhavalli and Premavathi in favour of the second defendant/Veerabadran,
registered as Document No.9209/2010 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office is null and void.
2. After perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, the Court below decreed
the suit by holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to 7/30th share each in the suit properties,
the defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to 7/30th share each in the suit properties; and
Kumudavalli, the mother of the parties, and the third defendant/Premavathi are entitled to
1/30th share each in the suit properties. It is further held that the release deed dated
24.08.2010 executed by Kumudhavalli and Premavathi in favour of the second
defendant/Veerabadran, registered as Document No.9209/2010, is valid. Aggrieved by the
impugned judgment and decree, the defendants 2 and 3 have filed the present appeal.
3. It is seen from the records that the parties are blood relatives and therefore, when
the matter was taken up on 30.11.2021, this Court suggested the parties to settle the issue
amicably.
4. Accordingly, today, when the matter is taken up, Mr.K.Sitharthan, learned
counsel for the appellants, filed a Memo of Calculation dated 30.11.2021 showing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.780 of 2018
allotment of number of shares between the parties. For better appreciation, the said Memo
of Calculation is extracted below:-
Kumudavalli Ammal (wife) - 1/36th share
Rajkumar (son) - 1/6 + 1/36 - 7/36th share
Sivamani (Son) - 1/6 + 1/36 - 7/36th share
Veerabathran (son) - 1/6 + 1/36 - 7/36th share
Sekkizhar @ Ravi (son) - 1/6 + 1/36 - 7/36th share
Premavathi (daughter) - 1/6 + 1/36 - 7/36th share
4. Mr.R.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the respondents, on instruction from his
clients, has also agreed for the above said Memo of Calculation (shares) dated 30.11.2021
filed by the appellants.
5. Therefore, recording the joint statement made by the learned counsels for the
appellants and the respondents agreeing for the Memo of Calculation (shares) dated
30.11.2021, the appeal suit is partly allowed. Memo of Calculation (shares) dated
30.11.2021 shall form part of the judgment. Consequently, the impugned judgment and
decree passed by the Court below is partly modified to the extent of Memo of Calculation
(shares) dated 30.11.2021. No Costs. CMP.No.21130 of 2018 is closed.
(T.R., J.) (D.B.C., J.)
01.12.2021
rkm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.780 of 2018
T.RAJA, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
rkm
To
District Court No.II,
Kancheepuram.
A.S.No.780 of 2018
01.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
