Madras High Court
S. Karthikeyini vs R.Selvaranga Mudaliar ... on 21 September, 2021
C.S.No.702 of 2002
and A.Nos.3739 to 3741 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
C.S.No.702 of 2002
and A.Nos.3739 to 3741 of 2017
S. Karthikeyini
K.Victoria Rani ...Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.R.Selvaranga Mudaliar (Deceased)
2.S. Thandapani
3.S.Ravisekar
4.S.Karunamurthi
5.S.Meera Bai
(Plaintiffs and Respondents 2 to 5 are
brought on record as legal representatives
of deceased 1st defendant as per order
dt.28.01.2004 in Appl. No.247/2004) ...Defendants
Prayer: The Civil Suit has been filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original
Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. 1908, praying to pass a
decree and judgment against the defendants.
(a)for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs share (*) 2/6 in the A
schedule properties by metes and bounds.
(b)directing the 1st Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- being the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.702 of 2002
and A.Nos.3739 to 3741 of 2017
Plaintiffs (*)2/6 in the past mesne profits accrued from A Schedule properties
for the preceding three years from the date of presentation of the above suit.
(c)directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs their future mesne profits
from the date of the plaint to till the date of delivery of possession of
plaintiff's (*) 2/6 shares in the A Schedule properties.
(d)for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 2 to 5 his men agents
servants or any person authorized on his behalf from in any way alienating or
dealing with any of the A and B Schedule properties in any manner.
(e)to appoint an advocate commissioner to divide the A Schedule properties
by metes and bounds and allot the plaintiffs (*) 2/6 share in the A schedule
properties and no costs.
(*)amended as per order dated 07.07.2008 in Appl. No.1205 of 2004)
For Plaintiffs : M/s. N.Nagu Sah
For Defendants : Mr.N.Chandra Sekar for D4
Mr.M.Hariharan for D2
JUDGMENT
(This case has been heard through video conference)
The Suit is for partition among the siblings. The matter is amicably settled and
compromised. All the parties have logged in and all of them confirmed the
compromise they have entered in. This Court is satisfied and records the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.702 of 2002
and A.Nos.3739 to 3741 of 2017
same.
2.It may stated that necessarily decree has to be passed in terms of
compromise. Having stated so, this matter came up before this Court on
16.09.2021, when all the parties except 4th defendant, logged in on the screen
and this Court was informed that the 4th defendant wanted to settle some
other outstanding issues which are alien to the suit, and hence he has not
appeared through virtual Court. Hence, this Court could not record the
compromise and adjourned the matter for physical appearance of the parties
at 2.15 p.m. on 20.09.2021. By inadvertence, the Registry did not post the
case on that day. However, the counsels appearing for the parties made a
mention of the case and accordingly the case is posted today.
3.This Court was informed yesterday (20.09.2021) that the 4th defendant also
stands by the compromise he has signed. Today the 4th defendant has
appeared and confirmed the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.702 of 2002
and A.Nos.3739 to 3741 of 2017
4.In its order dated 16.09.2021, this Court has expressed considerable
anguish that the 4th defendant has attempted to settle certain outstanding
scores with the plaintiffs by holding the judicial process of this Court to
ransom. The Court is just a machinery which has to be handled with
considerable responsibility by the litigants to resolve issues arising out of the
cause of action or matters closely connected with it. It can never be made a
centre for resolving the conflicting issues of the litigants, but the 4th defendant
has done it and it cannot be allowed to go without a penalty.
5.What should be done, should be done immediately and should not be
allowed to stand over to another day. But the 4th defendant ensured that the
matter was adjourned to another day and unnecessarily he has created
difficulties and inconvenience to the Court. This Court, therefore, directs the
4th defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the
Chief Justice Relief Fund to purge the kind of irresponsibility exhibited by
him in dealing with the judicial process of this Court,
6.The Compromise Memo dated 15.09.2021 has been recorded and taken on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.702 of 2002
and A.Nos.3739 to 3741 of 2017
file.
7. This Civil Suit stands dismissed as settled out of Court accordingly. The
Registry is directed to refund the Court fee as per law. Consequently, the
connected applications are also dismissed. No costs.
21.09.2021
kas / dk
Index : yes / no
Internet : yes / no
Speaking / Non Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.702 of 2002
and A.Nos.3739 to 3741 of 2017
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
kas / dk
C.S.No.702 of 2002
and
A.Nos.3739 to 3741 of 2017
21.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
