Madras High Court
S.Nagalakshmi vs S.Sampath on 13 April, 2022
S.A.No.866 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Second Appeal No.866 of 2015
and MP No.1 of 2015
S.Nagalakshmi ... Appellant
Vs.
1. S.Sampath
2. Mrs. S.Jayalakshmi
3. Mrs. P.Vijayalakshmi
4. Mrs. D.Alamelu
5. Mrs. P.Nirmala ... Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2015
dismissing AS No.216 of 2014 passed by the learned XVII Additional
Judge, City Civl Court, Chennai in so far it relates to partition of the suit
property by confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2014
dismissing OS No.5744 of 2012 and passed by the learned XIII Assistant
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.866 of 2015
City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mrs. Sarojini Govindan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Baskaran, for R1
No appearance for R5
Not ready in notice for RR2, 3 & 4
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is the appellant in the Second Appeal.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking for the relief of partition and
for allotment of 1/6th share in the suit property.
3. Both the Courts below concurrently held against the plaintiff and
consequently the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff
filed this Second Appeal.
4. When the matter came up for hearing on 24.03.2022, this Court
passed the following order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.866 of 2015
“This Court heard the learned counsel appearing on
either side. There is a fight between the second wife and the
son of the first wife for an extent of 526 sq.ft. Admittedly, the
son of the first wife is in possession and enjoyment of the
property. In the considered view of this Court, the matter
can be a compromised between the parties, since the
litigation between the parties has been going on for more
than 25 years.
2. In view of the above, the appellant namely
Nagalakshmi is directed to be present before this Court
during the next date of hearing. The first defendant namely
Mr.Sampath shall also be present at the time of hearing.
3. Post this case under the caption 'for recording
compromise' on 31.03.2022 at 2.15 p.m.”
5. Thereafter the matter was once again posted on 31.03.2022 and
this Court passed the following order:
“Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court on
24.03.2022, the parties were present before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.866 of 2015
2. A draft memorandum of compromise was also
produced before this Court. This Court is convinced with the
terms of the compromise. The learned counsel appearing on
either side shall finalize this memorandum of compromise and
the learned counsel for the appellant shall direct the
appellant to bring the Demand Draft for a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) in favour of the
respondent.
3. Post this case under the caption 'For Recording the
Memo of Compromise' on 13.04.2022 at 10.30 a.m.”
6. When the matter was taken up for hearing to-day, the learned
counsel appearing on either side submitted that the parties have entered
into a compromise and they have also signed a Memorandum of
Compromise. The appellant and the first respondent were also present in
person at the time of hearing. This Court enquired the appellant and the
first respondent and both of them stated that the matter has been
compromised and they have signed the Memorandum of Compromise.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.866 of 2015
7. The terms of the Memorandum of Compromise is extracted
hereunder:
1. The Respondents 1 to 3 in the Appeal are the son and
daughters of the late Subramaniam born through his first wife.
The Appellant is the second wife of late Subramaniam and the
respondents 4 &5 are born to the appellant.
2. The property bearing New No.118, Old No.24/2, III Main
Road, CIT Nagar (East), Chennai 600 035 measuring about
1128 square feet was purchased by late Subramaniam during
his life time. He constructed a superstructure and after his
death. The appellants and respondents were living there.
3. The Appellant and the respondents sold the vacant land
measuring about 600 sq.ft. on the Southern side of the
property to one Padmavathy by a Deed of absolute sale deed
28.5.1997, registered as Document No.858 of 1997 at the
Office of the Sub-Registrar, T.Nagar for a total sale
consideration of Rs.3,72,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.866 of 2015
4. The Appellant filed O.S.No.5744 of 2012 on the file of XIII
Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai for partition and separate
possession of her 1/6th share in the property. The suit was
dismissed on 25.02.2014. She filed AS No.216 of 2014, on the
file of XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The appeal
was also dismissed on 09.02.2015. The Second Appeal is filed
against the judgment and decree. The respondents 2 to 5
remained exparte in the suit, First Appeal. In this appeal also
there is no appearance for them.
5. During the pendency of the Second Appeal the female
members of the family and the well wishers advised the
appellant and the 1st respondent to settle the issue and asked
the appellant to receive a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs only), and allow the 1st respondent, the only male
member in the family to reside in the house without any
hinderance from anybody.
6. Accordingly, the appellant and the 1st respondent have agreed
to settle the dispute between themselves on the terms mutually
agreed upon as setout in this memorandum of compromise.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.866 of 2015
A. The Appellant agreed to receive a sum of Rupees 5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs only) from the 1st respondent in full and
final settlement of all her share right, interest and claim over
the property and agreed to pass a final decree in favour of the
1st respondent, giving and allotting the entire property
mentioned in the schedule to the 1st respondent.
B. The Appellant undertakes not to claim or demand any
further amount from the 1st respondent. Hereafter, the 1st
respondent is the sole and absolute owner of the property and
the appellant undertakes not to interfere with his peaceful
possession, enjoyment and occupation of the schedule
property.
C. The 1st respondent paid the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the
appellant who admits and acknowledges the receipt of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) by way of Demand
Draft dated 08.04.2022, bearing No.300506 drawn on Indian
Bank Services Branch.
D. In the circumstances, the parties pray that a final decree
be passed allotting the schedule property to the 1st respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.866 of 2015
herein in terms of this compromise memo.
E. The respondents 2 to 5 who were set exparte in the suit and
in the 1st Appeal also they did not appear even before this
Court.
8. The appellant who was present in person confirmed that she has
received the Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the first
respondent. The appellant who is the step mother of the first respondent
alone contested the suit and the second and third defendants who are the
sisters of the first defendant (first respondent) did not contest the case and
did not claim for any share in the property. Therefore, by virtue of this
Memorandum of compromise, the first respondent becomes the exclusive
owner of the suit property and no one else will have any claim over the
same.
9. In view of the above, this Second Appeal is disposed of in terms
of the Memorandum of Compromise between the appellant and the first
respondent and the Memorandum of Compromise shall form part of the
decree. Considering the relationship between the parties and taking into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.866 of 2015
consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs. It is left open to the first respondent to register the
decree passed in the Second Appeal before the concerned Sub-Registrar
Office so that this decree will be construed as the title document of the
first respondent to deal with the property. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
jv
To
1. The XVII Additional Judge,
City Civl Court, Chennai
2. The XIII Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai.
3. The Section Officer
VR Section,
High Court Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.866 of 2015
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
jv
Second Appeal No.866 of 2015
and MP No.1 of 2015
13.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
