Madras High Court
V.Annamalai vs Periyal on 7 October, 2021
A.S.No.295 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.10.2021
CORAM
The Honourable Mrs.Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
A.S.No.295 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.6996 of 2018
1.V.Annamalai
2.V.Arunachalam ...Appellants
vs
1.Periyal
2.V.Nagammai
3.Vallikannu ...Respondents
Prayer:First Appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 96 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated
25.10.2017, made in O.S.No.101 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional
and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
****
For Appellants : Mr.S.Mukunth
for Saravabhsuman Associates
For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumanan
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Pushpa Sathyanarayana.J., )
This Appeal Suit has been filed against the judgment and decree
dated 25.10.2017, made in O.S.No.101 of 2014 on the file of the III
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.295 of 2018
Additional and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
2.The suit was filed for partition by the wife and daughter of one
S.Vairavan, seeking to divide the suit property into five equal shares and
for allotments of two equal shares to the plaintiff, which was decreed.
Aggrieved over the same, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 preferred the
present appeal. Pending the appeal, it appears that the parties have
amicably settled the issues among themselves, which is entered into a
joint Memo of Compromise. The terms of joint Memo of Compromise is
extracted hereunder:
“That the first appellant, viz., V.Annamalai
is allotted with the House property, which is more
fully described as Scheduled B hereunder, and he
would pay the difference amount of Rs.17.5 Lakhs
to the first respondent herein, viz., Periyal towards
her share amount.
That the second appellant, viz.,
V.Arunachalam is allotted with the Shed property,
which is more fully described as Scheduled C
hereunder, and he would pay the difference amount
of Rs.12.5 Lakhs to the third respondent herein,
viz., Vallikannu towards her share amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.295 of 2018
That the second respondent, viz.,
V.Nagammai is allotted with the Workshop
property, which is more fully described as Schedule
D hereunder, and she would pay the difference
amount of Rs.15 Lakhs to first and third defendants
at Rs.5 Lakhs and Rs.10 Lakhs respectively towards
their respective share amount.
That the parties have mutually agreed to
settle their issues amicably in so far as the partition
of their properties and have no other mutual claims
as against each other in respect of the properties
above mentioned. It is also made clear that the
claim for mesne profits is given up and shall rest
here.
In view of the above compromise arrived at
between the parties above named the above appeal
suit may be disposed off recording this
memorandum of compromise and the terms
mentioned here above and a final decree may be
passed in accordance with this compromise memo
and further directing the parties to deposit necessary
NJ papers for engrossing the final decree as it may
deem fit and proper.“
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.295 of 2018
3.The parties to the appeal, viz., V.Annamalai and
V.Arunachalam, who are the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and Periyal,
V.Nagammai and Vallikannu, who are the plaintiffs and third respondent
respectively, appeared before this Court through video conference and
they were identified by their respective counsels.
4.Hence, the Appeal Suit is disposed of in terms of the above
settlement. The joint Memo of Compromise dated 11.08.2021, shall
form part and parcel of the judgment. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
07.10.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
rst
To:
The III Additional and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.295 of 2018
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
rst
A.S.No.295 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.6996 of 2018
07.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
