Madras High Court
Unknown vs V.N.Kumara Guru on 4 February, 2021
C.S.Nos.38 and 712 of 2016
and O.A.No.49 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 04.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
C.S.Nos.38 and 712 of 2016
and
O.A.No.49 of 2016
C.S.No.38 of 2016
1. Mrs.Geetha Chandramouli
2. Ms.C.Archana
3. Mr.Sabarish, rep. By Power Agent
Mr.M.S.Chandramouli
(amended as per order dated 20.01.2021
in A.No.118 of 2021) ... Plaintiffs
Vs
1. V.N.Kumara Guru
2. Mrs.Poornima Rao
3. Mrs.Sulochana Swaminathan
4. Mr.Arvind Swaminathan
5. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,
First Floor, Ceebros Centre,
No.39, Montieth Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 039. ... Defendants
[Defendants D3 to D5 were given up as per order dated 14.12.2020 vide
memo in CS No.38 of 2016)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
C.S.Nos.38 and 712 of 2016
and O.A.No.49 of 2016
Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O. S. Rules read with
Order VII Rule 1 of CPC, for the following judgment and decree, against
the defendants 1 and 2 :
[i] Declaring that the Sale Deed dated 29.4.2013, bearing
Doc.No.1049 of 2013, executed by the 3rd Defendant (i) Mrs.Sulochana
Swaminathan and 4th Defendant (ii) Mr.Arvind Swaminathan in favour of
the Defendants 1 and 2 herein, to the extent of 424.5 sq.ft. in the
common passage, described in the Schedule 'B' of the said Sale Deed as
void and not binding on the Plaintiffs;
[ii] For a Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendants 1 and 2 to
demolish and remove the encroachments and constructions put up in the
the property bearing New Door No.13, Old No.24, Tilak Street, T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600 017, comprised in Survey Nos.95/2 and 99/Part,
T.S.No.6838, measuring about 5085 sq.ft., described in the schedule
hereunder, hindering the free use by the Plaintiffs;
[iii] For a Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants 1 and
2, their Men, Agents, Servants and anyone acting under them from
putting up any constructions in the eastern edge of the property bearing
New Door No.13, Old No.24, Tilak Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 17,
comprised in Survey Nos.95/2 and 99/Part, T.S.No.6838, measuring
about 5085 sq.ft., described in the schedule hereunder, by parking their
cars or other vehicles in the said area hindering the free use by the
Plaintiffs; and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/6
C.S.Nos.38 and 712 of 2016
and O.A.No.49 of 2016
(iv) For a Decree of Partition dividing the property bearing New
Door No.13, Old No.24, Tilak Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 17,
comprised in Survey Nos.95/2 and 99/Part, T.S.No.6838, measuring
about 5085 sq.ft., described in the schedule hereunder and allotting 50%
share to the Plaintiffs with a right to use the first floor portion of the
building and handover possession of the same.
For Plaintiffs : Mr.Praveen S.Kumar
for M/s.Rank Associates
For Defendants : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar (D1 & D2)
C.S.No.712 of 2016
1. V.N.Kumara Guru
2. Mrs.Poornima Rao ... Plaintiffs
Vs
1. M.S.Chandramouli
2. Sabarish Chandramouli
3. Geetha
4. C.Archana ... Defendants
Civil Suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC, for the following
judgment and decree :
[i] for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their
agents, men or any one claiming through them from disturbing or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3/6
C.S.Nos.38 and 712 of 2016
and O.A.No.49 of 2016
interfering with the plaintiffs use and enjoyment of the common passage
on schedule 'C' property; and
[ii] directing the defendants to pay the cost of this suit.
For Plaintiffs : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar
For Defendants : Mr.Praveen S.Kumar
for M/s.Rank Associates.
COMMON JUDGMENT
Today, when the suits came up for hearing, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and
defendants 1 and 2 in C.S.No.38 of 2016, have appeared in the Video
Conferencing along with their respective learned counsel.
2. The Joint Memo of Compromise, filed by the parties, was read
out to the parties and thereafter, all the parties have admitted the contents
of the Joint Memo of Compromise, as found correct.
3. Hence, the compromise entered into between the Plaintiffs and
Defendants, vide Joint Memo of Compromise along with the proposed
plan for partition, is recorded. The suit in C.S.No.38 of 2016, is decreed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4/6
C.S.Nos.38 and 712 of 2016
and O.A.No.49 of 2016
in terms of the Joint Memo of Compromise. The Joint Memo of
Compromise, along with the proposed plan for partition, filed by either
parties, shall form part of the decree. Consequently, the suit in
C.S.No.712 of 2016, which is the connected suit filed for the relief of
injunction, is dismissed as infructuous. Original Application viz.,
O.A.No.49 of 2016, is closed.
04.02.2021
ars
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5/6
C.S.Nos.38 and 712 of 2016
and O.A.No.49 of 2016
R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
ars
C.S.Nos.38 and 712 of 2016
and O.A.No.49 of 2016
04.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
