Madras High Court
R.Krithin vs L.Ravindra Narayan on 29 April, 2022
C.S.No.766 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 29.04.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.S.No.766 of 2011
R.Krithin ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1. L.Ravindra Narayan
2. Sarojini Ramamurthy
3. L.Surendar Narrain ...Defendants
Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules read with Order VII Rule
1 of CPC for a Judgment and Decree against the defendants as follows:-
a) To pass a preliminary decree for partitioning the schedule
mentioned properties by metes and bounds and allot 1/6th share in
Schedule 'A' property, half share in Schedule 'B' property, 1/6th share in all
the items of 1 to 6 of Schedule 'C' properties, 1/6th share in Schedule 'D'
property, 1/6th share in Schedule 'E' property, half share in Schedule 'F'
property and 1/12th share in Schedule 'G' property
b) To appoint Advocate Commissioner to partition the properties
mentioned in the schedule and allot 1/6th share in Schedule 'A' property,
half share in Schedule 'B' property, 1/6th share in all the items of 1 to 6 of
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.766 of 2011
Schedule 'C' properties, 1/6th share in Schedule 'D' property, 1/6th share in
Schedule 'E' property, half share in Schedule 'F' property and 1/12th share
in Schedule 'G' property.
c) To pass final decree for partitioning the schedule mentioned
properties by metes and bounds and allot 1/6th share in Schedule 'A'
property, half share in Schedule 'B' property, 1/6th share in all the items of 1
to 6 of Schedule 'C' properties, 1/6th share in Schedule 'D' property, 1/6th
share in Schedule 'E' property, half share in Schedule 'F' property and
1/12th share in Schedule 'G' property.
d) To pass further orders.
For Plaintiff : Mr.S.Rajendra Kumar
For Defendants : Mr.B.Hari Krishnan for D1 and D2
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff, who is the son of the 1st defendant has filed the present
suit for partition of the schedule mentioned properties and for the reliefs
aforementioned supra.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.766 of 2011
2. The brief facts of the case, as averred by the plaintiff, is as follows:
One Mahalakshmi was married to the 1st defendant in accordance
with the Hindu Rites and Customs at Mysore and the wedding was
soleminized on 21.11.1996. Out of the wedlock, the plaintiff was born on
25.05.2001 at Chennai and with regard to certain disputes in the family, 1 st
defendant filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and the same
was opposed by the said Mahalakshmi. Thereafter, the wife of the 1 st
defendant, viz., Mahalakshmi filed a maintenance petition before the
Family Court, Mysore. The said court dismissed the petition for divorce
and awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/- [Rupees Seven Thousand five hundred
only] towards maintenance and the same was not paid by the 1st
defendant. The plaintiff filed the present suit for partition to which the
plaintiff is entitled and subsequently, the defendants 1 and 2 alleged that
L.Ramamurthy died leaving a Will. However, the plaintiff was aware that
L.Ramamurthy died intestate leaving behind the 1st defendant, as one of
the legal heirs and therefore, suspicion arose that the Will could be
fabricated one. Further, the suit schedule mentioned properties being joint
family properties, the plaintiff being legal heir of the 1st defendant, is
entitled to a share, therefore seeks to grant the reliefs sought for in the
plaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.766 of 2011
3. On the contrary, the defendants 1 & 2, who are the father and
grand mother of the plaintiff resisted the suit by filing the written statement,
wherein all the contents stated in the plaint were denied and submitted that
all the suit properties mentioned by the plaintiff were settled by one
L.Narayanasamy Mudaliar, who was the uncle of L.Srinivasa Mudaliar and
the defendants 1 and 3 are the descendants of L.Srinivasa Mudaliar,
therefore, the suit properties are not the coparcenary properties, in which
the plaintiff can make a claim as a coparcener, therefore, prayed to dismiss
the suit.
4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
documents placed on record.
5. Admittedly, the suit is laid for partition for certain estate, which the
plaintiff claims as his ancestral property in the hands of his father, the 1st
defendant in the suit and the 1st defendant derived title from his father, viz.,
Ramamurthy (paternal grandfather of the plaintiff), under the Will executed
by the latter's father, viz., Srinivasa Mudaliyar on 27.11.1957.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.766 of 2011
6. It is pertinent to point out that as per the orders passed by this
Court on 02.03.2021, P.W.1 appeared before the learned Additional Master
No.IV on 17.03.2021 for cross examination, but the defendants did not
appear and cross-examine the P.W.1 and accordingly, the learned
Additional Master No.IV has sent back the records to this Court for further
orders. As the defendants did not turn up and cross examine the said
witness and there was no representation for the defendants on several
hearings and on 24.03.2021, they were called absent and set exparte on
24.03.2021. Subsequently, an application in A.No.4924 of 2021 was taken
out by the defendants to set aside the exparte order and the same was
allowed on payment of Rs.5,000/- on 06.01.2022. Considering the fact that
the dispute is between the son and the father, the matter was referred to
Mediation before Mediation and Conciliation Center for arriving at an
amicable settlement on 25.01.2022.
7. Accordingly, on 07.04.2022, the matter has been settled before
the Tamilnadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, wherein the following
settlement [which was duly signed by the plaintiff as well as the 1st
defendant, father and son respectively] has been arrived:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.766 of 2011
“The father namely, first defendant undertakes to take
care of his son Krithin.R, namely, the plaintiff's all the
educational expenses in connection with the plaintiff's proposed
post graduation study abroad including but not limited to;
1. Preparation of GRE and TOEFL
2. University Application fee
3. Affidavit of financial support
4. University tution fee, Travel expenses and living
expenses
Based on the above arrangement, the plaintiff agrees to
withdraw the suit namely, C.S.No.766 of 2011 pending on the
file of Hon'ble High Court, Madras”
8. In view of the above, the suit is dismissed as settled out of Court.
The Mediation Report and the Settlement arrived at the Mediation shall
form part of the decree. Registry is directed to refund the Court fee to the
plaintiff, as per Rules.
29.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking /Non-Speaking Judgment
ssd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.766 of 2011
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.,
ssd
C.S.No.766 of 2011
27.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
