Madras High Court
Dr.Deepika Miglan vs Dr.Saket Miglani on 10 June, 2022
C.S.No.37 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :10.06.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
C.S.No.37 of 2022
Dr.Deepika Miglan ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Dr.Saket Miglani
2. The Chief Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Chennai Annasalai, LIC Branch
LIC of India Building,
102 Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002
2. The Chief Manager,
State Bank of India
Chamiers Road Branch, 21,
Chamiers Road, Nandanam Extension,
Chennai – 600 035 ...Defendants
Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 O.S.Rules Read with order VII
Rule 1 CPC to pass Judgment and Decree as follows:-
(a) For partition and separate possession of the item no.1 to 6 in the
suit schedule property by metes and bounds and allot 1/6th share in the
item no.1 and ½ share in the item no.2 to 6 of the suit schedule properties
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.37 of 2022
to the plaintiff.
(b) For mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to hand over
the properties of the plaintiff listed in the Item 7 of the schedule of property
to the plaintiff.
(c) For permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 and 3 from
disbursing the half share of the plaintiff in item 4 of the suit property to 1st
defendant.
(d) For future profits from the suit schedule properties and costs.
(e) To pass such other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.
For Plaintiff : M/s C.Jayachitra
For Defendants : Mr.Adithya Raj for
M/s P.Wilson Associates for D1
Mr. N.Somasundar for D2
Mr.B.Sivakollappan for D3
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as the learned
counsels for the defendants.
2. On scrutinising the documents placed on record it is seen that
earlier, i.e., on 04.03.2022, this Court, upon considering the request made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.37 of 2022
on either side, referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre
to enable the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement. Subsequently, the
parties appeared before the Mediation Centre and mediation report dated
20.04.2022 has been filed indicating that the dispute in the present suit has
been settled by way of Joint Memo of Compromise entered into between
the parties on 19.04.2022. After recording the said Joint Memo of
Compromise, a report has been forwarded to this Court along with the said
Joint Compromise memo.
3. Today, the learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as the
defendants jointly submitted that the suit may be decreed in terms of Joint
Memo of Compromise entered between the parties before the mediator
and all the parties are present before this Court and expressed their
willingness to settle the matter, as per the terms of Joint Memo of
Compromise.
4. Apart from the above, both the learned counsel for the plaintiff as
well as the defendants made a submission stating that the amounts
referred at Paragraph No.4 of the Joint Memo of Compromise shall be
equally shared between the plaintiff and 1st defendant. Acceding to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.37 of 2022
said submission, the 2nd and 3rd defendants / Bank are hereby directed to
pay the 50% of the eligible entitlement in terms of Paragraph No.4 of the
Joint Memo of Compromise to and in favour of the plaintiff and the
remaining,viz., balance 50% shall be paid to and in favour of the 1st
defendant.
5. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of the Joint Memo of
Compromise entered into between the parties dated 19.04.2022 and the
same shall form part and parcel of the judgment and decree. Registry is
directed to return the court fee to the plaintiff, as eligible, in accordance
with law. Consequently, connected applications, if any, do stand closed.
10.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking /Non-Speaking Judgment
ssd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.37 of 2022
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.,
ssd
C.S.No.37 of 2022
10.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
