Madras High Court
Veronica Jeyaraj vs G.Selvaraj :First on 24 February, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
AS(MD)NO.175 of 2011
and
M.P(MD)No.2 of 2011
1.Veronica Jeyaraj,
Wife of Jeyaraj,
Rose Mary Matriculation Higher Secondary
School,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli – 627 002.
2.Rose Mary Education Society,
thorugh its Secretary,
having the Office at Rosemary Matriculation
Higher Secondary School,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli – 627 002 :Appellants/Defendants 2 and 3
.vs.
1.G.Selvaraj :First Respondent/Plaintiff
V.Rajamani(died on 20.07.2011)
2.R.Poomani
3.R.Subramanian
4.R.Thirunavukkarasu
5.R.Anbarasi Manimehalai
6.R.Balamurugan
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
7.R.Arularasi Esther
8.R.Sankari :Respondents 2 to 8/Third parties
(Cause-title accepted vide order of this Court made in
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 in A.S.SR(MD)No.37642 of 2011,
dated 02.08.2011)
(R2 to R8-given up vide endorsement made by the
first appellant/Veronica Jeyaraj, dated 24.2.2021)
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure
Code praying this Court to set aside the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.30 of 2007, dated 30.06.2011, on the file of the
Ist Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.
For Appellants :Mr.A.Sivaji
For Respondent-1 :Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar
For Respondents :Given Up
2 to 8 (vide endorsement, dated
24.02.2021)
JUDGMENT
*************
[Judgment of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.]
This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.30 of 2007, dated 30.06.2011, on the file of the
Ist Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court including the Joint
Compromise Memo filed by both the parties.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3.The suit is filed by the first respondent herein/Plaintiff for
the relief of specific performance. The said suit was decreed as
prayed for by the Plaintiff. Aggrieved over the same, defendants 2
and 3 have filed the present Appeal Suit before this Court.
4.When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it is stated
by the learned counsel appearing on either side that both the
parties have entered into a compromise. The first
defendant/Rajamani(deceased) was the original owner of the
property, had entered into an agreement with one
Selvaraj/Plaintiff/first respondent herein. In the meanwhile, the
said Rajamani sold the property to the defendants 2 and 3. A Joint
Compromise Memo has been entered into between
Selvaraj/Plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3. The owner of the
property namely, Rajamani reported dead on 20.07.2011 and his
legal heirs/respondents 2 to 8 are impleaded as respondents 2 to 8
in the Appeal Suit. The said Rajamani had already sold the
property. He has got no right or title to the suit property. Therefore
the first appellant has given up the respondents 2 to 8 in the main
Appeal Suit and also filed a Joint Compromise Memo,dated
24.02.2021. Both the appellants as well as the first respondent
herein have appeared before this Court in person and have signed
the Joint Compromise Memo, dated 24.02.2021. Both the parties
http://www.judis.nic.in
have accepted the terms of the Joint Compromise. The terms of the
Joint Compromise filed by both the parties, reads as follows:
TERMS OF COMPROMISE
''1.The judgment and decree of the trial Court
in O.S.No.30 of 2007, on the file of the Ist Additional
District Court, Tirunelveli may be confirmed in
respect of execution of sale deed in favour of
Mr.G.Selvaraj/Plaintiff and the trial Court may be
directed to execute the sale deed within a time frame.
2.The Judgment and decree of the trial Court in
O.S.No.30 of 2007 on the file of Ist Additional District
Court, Tirunelveli may be modified in respect of
withdrawal of the deposited amount along with
interest and since Mr.V.Rajamani had already
received the sale consideration from Smt.Veronica
Jeyaraj and Rose Mary Educational Society, therefore
this Honourable Court may permit the appellants
herein to withdraw the deposited amount along with
interest, for which, the Plaintiff Mr.G.Selvaraj has no
objection.''
http://www.judis.nic.in
5.The above Joint Compromise Memo is taken on file. In view
of the above, the Appeal Suit is disposed of in terms of the Joint
Compromise Memo. The Joint Compromise Memo shall form part
and parcel of the Judgment and decree. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[P.S.N.,J.] & [S.K.,J.]
24.02.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsn
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall be
the responsibility of the
Advocate / litigant
concerned.
To
1.The Ist Additional District Judge,
Ist Additional District Court,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
AS(MD)NO.175 of 2011
and
M.P(MD)No.2 of 2011
24.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
