Thursday, 07, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Kalyanasundaram (Died) vs K.M.Shanmuga Sundaram
2021 Latest Caselaw 14655 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 14655 Mad
Judgement Date : 22 July, 2021

Madras High Court
Kalyanasundaram (Died) vs K.M.Shanmuga Sundaram on 22 July, 2021
                        BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                         DATED : 22.07.2021

                                               CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                         SA(MD)No.91 of 2007

                1.Kalyanasundaram (died)

                2.Dakshinamoorthy

                Rep.by its Power of Attorney Agent
                K.Somasundaram

                3.K.Somasundaram                   ... Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants

                (A3 was brought on record as LRs of
                the deceased first appellant vide
                Court order dated 14.06.2021)

                                                   Vs.

                1.K.M.Shanmuga Sundaram

                2.S.Amarnath

                3.Veerapathiran

                (R3 was impleaded vide court order
                dated 19.02.2021 made in
                CMP(MD)No.1263 of 2021)
                4.K.Alamelu
                5.K.Nagarajan
                6.Amudha                           ... Respondents / Defendants
                (R4 to R6 were brought on record
                vide court order dated 14.06.2021)



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                1/7
                Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
                Code against the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2005 made in A.S
                No.22 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,, Devakottai
                confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2005 made in O.S
                No.36 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Devakottai.


                                   For Appellant        : Mrs.Chithra Sampath
                                                              for Mr.Rajkumar
                                                              for Pon Karthikeyan
                                   For Respondents      : Mr.Vallinayagam, Senior Counsel
                                                              for Mr.J.Anandkumar for R3
                                                          Mr.A.Arumugam for R1 & R2




                                                   JUDGEMENT

The plaintiffs in O.S No.36 of 2004 on the file of the District

Munsif, Devakottai are the appellants in this second appeal. The suit

was filed by Shri.Kalyanasundaram and his brother Dakshinamoorthy

through their power agent K.Somasundaram. Somasundaram is none

other than the biological son of Shri.Kalyanasundaram. During the

pendency of this second appeal, Kalyanasundaram passed away and

his legal heirs have been brought on record. Kalyanasundaram,

Dakshinamoorthy and the first defendant K.M.Shanmugasundaram

are brothers. The suit involved the documents executed by their

mother Marimuthammal. According to the plaintiffs, the Will dated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

22.06.1999 (Ex.A1) executed by Marimuthammal was the last and

final Will. On the other hand, Shri.Dakshinamoorthy contended that

the said Will was cancelled by a subsequent Will dated 10.09.2001

(Ex.B4). Ex.A1 dated 22.06.1999 dealt with two land items (vacant

sites). According to the first plaintiff K.M.Shanmugasundaram while

one item was bequeathed vide Will dated 10.09.2001 (Ex.B4), the

other item was settled in his favour vide settlement deed dated

11.09.2001 (Ex.B5). The suit came to be dismissed by the trial court

vide judgment and decree dated 31.01.2005 and Ex.B4 Will as well as

Ex.B5 settlement deed were upheld. Challenging the same, the

plaintiffs filed A.S No.22 of 2005 before the Sub Court, Devakottai.

The first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 12.08.2005

dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, this second appeal came

to be filed. After the dismissal of A.S No.22 of 2005,

Shanmugasundaram sold the property covered under Ex.B5 in favour

of Veerapathiran/the third respondent vide sale deed dated

01.12.2005 (Document No.3504 of 2005), Sub Registrar, Devakottai.

2.The appellants were represented by Mrs.Chithra Sampath,

learned Senior Counsel while Shri.Vallinayagam, learned Senior

Counsel appeared for the second respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

3.After hearing the learned Senior Counsel on either side at

great length, I suggested that the dispute deserves to be resolved

amicably. The appellants had already entered into a compromise

with those who had purchased the property covered under Ex.B4 Will.

They had also filed a memo dated 22.07.2021 in this regard.

4.Today, Shri.K.Somasundaram who had been conducting the

case on behalf of the appellants all these years appeared before me in

person. The respondents 1 and 2 have ceased to have any interest in

the subject matter of this appeal. That is why, Shri.A.Arumugam,

their learned counsel adopted the submissions of the learned Senior

Counsel Shri.Vallinayagam. Therefore, this is a matter that has to

be dealt with only between Shri.K.Somasundaram and

Mr.Veerapathiran/R3. The parties were requested to spend some

time together and arrive at a compromise. I am happy to record that

the talks between the two ended fruitfully and that a joint compromise

memo signed by both of them has been filed. I requested Mr.Rajkumar

learned counsel to sign on behalf of the counsel on record for the

appellants Mr.Pon Karthikeyan. He accordingly signed in the memo.

The counsel for the third respondent had also signed in the

compromise memo. I am of the view that the compromise is mutually

beneficial. The compromise memo dated 22.07.2021 shall form part of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

the decree. I make it clear that this compromise is only confined to

the property covered under Ex.B4 Will and Ex.B5 settlement deed.

The appellants have already compromised the matter regarding the

property covered under Ex.B4. The dispute in respect of Ex.B5 has

also now been compromised. This will not have any bearing or

implication on the appellants' rights in respect of the other joint family

properties. The counsel for the appellants informs the court that they

intend to file a partition suit against Shanmuga Sundaram and

S.Amarnath very shortly. If such a suit is filed within a period of eight

weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment, the jurisdictional civil

court will dispose of the matter on merits and in accordance with law

within a period of nine months thereafter.

5.The second appeal is disposed of with the above direction. No

costs.

22.07.2021

Index : Yes / no, Internet : yes / no skm 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

To:

1.The Subordinate Judge,, Devakottai

2.The District Munsif, Devakottai.

Copy to : The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

skm

SA(MD)No.91 of 2007

22.07.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter