Madras High Court
K.Ramachandran vs J.Noor Jagan on 3 February, 2022
AS.No.279/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AS.No.279/2018
[Hybrid Mode]
K.Ramachandran .. Appellant
Vs.
1.J.Noor Jagan
2.Saffana
3.J.Akbar Ali
4.R.Rajendran .. Respondents
Prayer:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment
and decree dated 11.10.2017 made in OS.No.343/2014 on the file of the
learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan
For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.B.Vijayakumar
For R4 : Mr.M.N.Balasubramanian
JUDGMENT
(1) The appellant herein is the 1st defendant in the suit in
OS.No.343/2014 on the file of the learned IV Additional District
AS.No.279/2018
and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. Respondents 1 to 3 in this
Appeal Suit are the plaintiffs.
(2) Respondents 1 to 3 as plaintiffs, filed the suit in OS.No.343/2014
on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore, for partition of the suit schedule properties into two
equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiffs
and other share to the defendants. The other relief is for appointing
a Commissioner to divide the suit properties by metes and bounds
into two equal shares and to allot one equal share to the plaintiffs.
(3) It is admitted that a preliminary decree was passed as prayed for
and aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant has preferred the
above appeal.
(4) During the pendency of this appeal, the parties have negotiated for
a settlement. It is stated that the 4th respondent in the appeal is only
a formal party as he was only a tenant in respect of a portion of the
suit schedule property.
(5) As regards the appellant and respondents 1 to 3 who are the 1st
defendant and plaintiffs in the suit in OS.No.343/2014, it is stated
that they have entered into a compromise. A Memorandum of
AS.No.279/2018
Compromise dated 29.09.2021 jointly filed by the appellant and
respondents 1 to 3 along with the Plan, is produced before this
Court.
(6) The Compromise Memo is signed by the parties and their respective
counsels. The Memo dated 29.09.2021 shows that the parties
have divided the property as per the plan which was appended to
the Joint Compromise Memo. As per the said Memo, it is stated
that the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the Memorandum of
Compromise so that the parties can file an application for final
decree on the basis of the Joint Compromise Memo.
(7) The said Joint Compromise Memo dated 29.09.2021 is taken on
file and record.
(8) Recording the Joint Compromise Memo dated 29.09.2021, the
Appeal Suit is liable to be dismissed. However, the division of
properties as agreed by the parties as per the plan appended to the
Joint Compromise Memo, is recorded.
(9) Though the parties have requested this Court to direct the Trial
Court to pass final decree based on the Memorandum of
AS.No.279/2018
Compromise, this Court is of the view that the final decree can be
passed by this Court if the parties agree for passing of final decree
in terms of the Compromise Memo, to which, the learned counsels
on either side agreed. The Joint Compromise Memo and the Plan
appended thereto shall form part of the final decree.
(10) Accordingly, the Appeal Suit stands dismissed confirming the
judgment and decree dated 11.10.2017 passed in OS.No.343/2014
by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore. There shall be a final decree in terms of the
division of the suit schedule properties as per the plan
appended to the Joint Compromise Memo dated 29.09.2021
filed by the appellant and respondents 1 to 3. No costs.
03.02.2022
AP
Internet : Yes
To
1.IV Additional District and Sessions Judge
Coimbatore.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Chennai.
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AP
AS.No.279/2018
AS.No.279/2018
03.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5
