Madras High Court
Jansi Rani vs Arumuga Reddiar on 28 November, 2022
S.A.Nos.783 and 784 of 1996 & SA(MD)No.583 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.11.2022
CORAM: JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
S.A.Nos.783 and 784 of 1996
and S.A(MD)No.583 of 2012
In S.A.No.783 of 1996:
1. Jansi Rani
2.Minor Subash Chandra Reddy .... Appellants/Appellants/Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. Arumuga Reddiar
2. Shanmuga Reddiar
3. Ovu Reddiar (Died) ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
(R1 and R2 are recorded as LRs of the deceased 3rd respondent Vide order
dated 05.12.2007 in Memo USR No.3920 by DR(AS).
Prayer : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil
Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 08.02.1996 in A.S.No.75
of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thenkasi, confirming the
judgment and decree dated 31.03.1994 in O.S.No.384 of 1988 on the file of
the District Munsif, Sankarankoil.
For Appellants : Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi
For R1 & R2 : Mr.T.Balaji
R3 : Died
In S.A.No.784 of 1996:
Jansi Rani .... Appellant/Appellant/Defendant
Vs.
Ovu Reddiar (Died) ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
2. Arumuga Reddiar
3. Shanmuga Reddiar ... Respondents 2 and 3/LRs of the sole respondent
(R2 and R3 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole respondent
Vide Court order dated 22.03.2007 in M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2007 (ASJ)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.783 and 784 of 1996 & SA(MD)No.583 of 2012
Prayer : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil
Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 08.02.1996 in A.S.No.76
of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thenkasi, confirming the
judgment and decree dated 31.03.1994 in O.S.No.383 of 1988 on the file of
the District Munsif, Sankarankoil.
For Appellant : Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi
For R2 & R3 : Mr.M.P.Senthil
R1 : Died
In SA(MD)No.583 of 2012:
1.Jansi Rani
2.Minor Subash Chandra Reddy .... Appellants/Appellants/Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. Ramalingam .
2. Arumuga Reddiar
3. Shanmuga Reddiar
4. Ovu Reddiar
5. Murugan ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
Prayer : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil
Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 08.02.1996 in A.S.No.77
of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thenkasi, confirming the
judgment and decree dated 31.03.1994 in O.S.No.408 of 1988 on the file of
the District Munsif, Sankarankoil.
For Appellants : Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi
For R5 : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.783 and 784 of 1996 & SA(MD)No.583 of 2012
COMMON JUDGMENT
S.A.No.783 of 1996 arises out of O.S.No.384 of 1988. S.A(MD)No.583 of
2012 arises out of O.S.No.408 of 1988. At the time of filing of the suits, the
second plaintiff/second appellant in both appeals was minor and today, he
has attained majority. The second appellant in both appeals is now declared
as major. He was represented by the first plaintiff/first appellant as guardian
when he was minor and now the first appellant in both appeals was
discharged.
2.S.A.Nos.783 and 784 of 1996 and S.A(MD)No.583 of 2012 are connected
appeals. While S.A.No.783 of 1996 arises out of a suit for declaration of
title and for injunction, S.A.No.784 of 1996 and S.A(MD) No.583 of 2012
arise out of 2 separate suits for prohibitory injunction and for mandatory
injunction.
3. Be that as it may, Ovu Reddiyar, who was arrayed as the 4th respondent in
S.A.(MD)No.583 of 2012 and first respondent in S.A.No.784 of 1996 and
third respondent in SA.No.783 of 1996, was dead. Ovu Reddiyar's heirs are
the appellants and the respondents 1 and 2 in S.A.No.783 of 1996.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.783 and 784 of 1996 & SA(MD)No.583 of 2012
4. In S.A.No.783 of 1996, both parties along with their respective counsels
appeared before the court and both sides made a statement that they have
compromised the matter. A memo of compromise duly signed by the parties
and their respective counsels too has been filed. This Court is satisfied with
the compromise and the memo of compromise is recorded. Since the matter
was compromised and the compromise memo was also recorded as per law,
S.A.No.783 of 1996 was disposed of. No costs. A decree is directed to be
drafted in terms of the compromise. The compromise memo shall form part
of the decree.
5. In view of the compromise, the parties evinced interest to withdraw
S.A.No.784 of 1996 and S.A(MD)No. 583 of 2012. The learned counsel
appearing for the appellants in both appeals has made an endorsment to that
effect. Hence, S.A.No.784 of 1996 and SA(MD)No.582 of 2012 are
dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
28.11.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
CM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.783 and 784 of 1996 & SA(MD)No.583 of 2012
To,
1.The Subordinate Judge, Thenkasi.
2.The District Munsif, Sankarankoil.
3.The Section Officer, VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.783 and 784 of 1996 & SA(MD)No.583 of 2012
N.SESHASAYEE, J.,
CM
S.A.Nos.783 and 784 of 1996
and S.A(MD)No.583 of 2012
28.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
