Madras High Court
Dr.M R Srinivasan vs Mr. Manali Veeraraghavan on 29 November, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.11.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.S.No. 91 of 2022
1. Dr.M R Srinivasan
2. M.r.Suseela ... Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. Mr. Manali Veeraraghavan
2. Smt. M.P.Kanniammal
3. Mr.P.Vijayakrishnan
4. Smt. Chitra
5. Smt. M.S. Bagyalakshmi (deceased)
As per order dated 29.11.2022 as in memo recorded
6. M.S.Hari Venkatesan
7. M.S.Aranganathan ...Defendants
Prayer : Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 CPC read with Order IV Rules 1
& 2 of OS Rules, to pass a Judgment and Decree
a) a preliminary decree for partition of the suit property into 4 shares
and directing the defendants to allot one such share to the plaintiffs by metes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
and bounds;
For plaintiffs : Mr. V.Srikanth
For Defendants
1, 5 to 7 : Mr. E.Srikanth
ORDER
The suit had been filed seeking partition and separate possession of
undivided 1/4th share in the suit schedule property and to allot the same to the
plaintiffs.
2. The suit schedule property is Plot Nos. 5 and 6 measuring 17
grounds and 273 sqare feet in Old Door No. 26, New No.55, Kasthuri Ranga
Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018 which had been purchased by sale deed
dated 01.12.1958 registered as Document No. 1830 of 1958 in the office of
the Sub Registrar, Mylapore and described in the schedule to the plaint.
3. The plaintiffs and the defendants trace their title to Manali
Srinivasa Mudaliar. The plaintiffs are the son and wife of Manali
Ramakrishnan Mudaliar, the first son of Manali Srinivasa Mudaliar. The first
defendant is the third son of Manali Srinivasa Mudaliar. The second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defendant is the widow of the second son, Manali Parthasarathy Mudaliar and
the third and fourth defendants are her son and daughter. The fifth defendant
is the widow of the fourth son Manali Saravana Mudaliar and the sixth and
seventh defendants are her two sons. There being no dispute relating to the
shares among the parties, I must place on record my deep appreciation to the
efforts taken by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs Mr. V. Srikanth, who
very judiciously had sought the matter to be referred to mediation. The
matter was accordingly referred and I must also place on record the efforts
taken by P.S.Kothandaraman, the learned Mediator, who had been appointed
by the Mediation and Concilation Cell of the Madras High Court and who
had, along with the learned counsel Mr. V.Srikanth enabled the parties to
come to an amicable settlement by agreeing to divide the property into four
parts.
4. It must be stated that pending the suit, a memo has been filed by
the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the fifth defendant
M.S.Bagyalakshmi had died on 05.10.022 but however the sixth and seventh
defendans are only surviving legal heirs and they are already on record. A
caveat is therefore placed that when the order copy is issued, the Registry
must note the death of the fifth defendant and also indicate that the sixth and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
seventh defendants, who are already on record are the legal heirs.
5. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs may also make necessary
amendment in the plaint indicating the death of the fifth defendant and also
indicating that the sixth and seventh defendants are her legal heirs. The
memo is reocrded.
6. Coming back to the mediation process, a Joint Memo of
Compromise had been forwarded by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre
by their letter dated 30.09.2022. The Joint Memo of Comprise had been
signed by all the parties to the suit except the fifth defendant, who had
unfortunately died. Annexed to the Joint Memo of Compromise is a plan.
The portion marked ‘D’, yellow in colour shall be taken by the plaintiffs. The
portion marked ‘B’, green in colour, shall be taken by the first defendant Mr.
Manali Veeraraghavan. The portion marked ‘C’, blue in colour, shall be
taken by the second, third and fourth defendants and the portion marked ‘A’,
pink in colour shall be taken by the seventh and eighth defendants. There is
also a provision for common passage to access the respective portions alloted
to the parties. That common passage is marked as ‘E’ in the plan annexed.
7. The plaintiffs and the defendants were also present in the Court
and they affirmed that they had entered into the Joint Memo of Compromise
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and affirmed their consent for such division of the property.
8. In view of the said compromise, without entering into any
further discussion, the suit is decreed in terms of the Joint Memorandum of
Compromise dated 21.09.2022 signed by all the parties and also by the
learned counsel for the plaintiffs. The Joint Memorandum of Compromise
and the plan which is annexed shall form part of the decree. No order as to
costs.
9. Registry may ensure that the plan annexed in colour to
distinguish the portions allotted, is issued to each one of the parties.
10. It is also brought to the notice that the plaintiffs had filed an
application under Order 2 Rule 2, CPC reserving right to file a suit for further
reliefs with respect to other proprties belonging to the joint family. By an
order dated 13.06.2022 such leave has been granetd. The same is also stated
in this Judgment.
Vsg 29.11.2022
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Speaking/Non Speaking Order
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Vsg
C.S.No. 91 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
29.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
