Madras High Court
Indrani vs Muthulakshmi on 15 September, 2023
S.A.No.688 of 2020
and CMP.No.14189 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 15.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
S.A.No.688 of 2020
and
CMP.No.14189 of 2020
Indrani .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Muthulakshmi
Saraswathi (Died)
2.S.Vasanthi
3.K.Murugesh
4.K.Kumaresh
Ramathal (Died)
5.Rathinam
6.R.Dhanabhagyam
7.S.Sivasamy .. Respondents
PRAYER : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, prayed to set aside the Judgement and Decree dated 18.03.2020
passed in A.S.No.70 of 2013, on the file of the III Additional District Judge,
Coimbatore, reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2013 passed in
O.S.No.249 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pollachi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.688 of 2020
and CMP.No.14189 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan
for M/s.Lourdu Paul Maurya
For R1 :Mr.S.Mukunth, Senior Counsel
for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates
For R2,3,5 to 7 : Mr.A.K.Rajaraman
for M/s.Gouri
For R4 : Refused
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgement and Decree dated
18.03.2020 passed in A.S.No.70 of 2013, on the file of the III Additional
District Judge, Coimbatore, reversing the judgment and decree dated
19.04.2013 passed in O.S.No.249 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate
Court, Pollachi.
2. Heard, Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan, learned counsel for
M/s.Lourdu Paul Maurya learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.S.Mukunth,
learned Senior Counsel for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates appearing for the
first respondent and Mr.A.K.Rajaraman, learned counsel for M/s.Gouri,
appearing for the respondents 2,3,5 to 7.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.688 of 2020
and CMP.No.14189 of 2020
3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel
for the respondents 2,3,5 to 7 submitted that the matter was settled between
the appellant as well as the first respondent. They have informed this Court
about the compromise arrived among them. The appellant and the first
respondent who are the 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant in the suit were sisters
and the remaining respondents are the father's sister (Aunty).
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the original
counsel Mr.Mouric, who is on record is unwell and not able to attend the
case proceedings for a long time. However, the appellant who is aged about
67 years old widow lady appeared before this Court. Both are sisters and
they are inclined to settle their property derived from their father.
Accordingly both of them entered into a compromise. There is no objection
as on date, by the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. Considering the age of both parties, are senior citizens, who want to
settle the issue, even as per the terms of compromise they have entered with
regard to undivided common share, for which they are entitled, as per the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.688 of 2020
and CMP.No.14189 of 2020
registered partition deed dated 10.08.2023, with regard to their legitimate
share. The partition deed also produced before this Court, which was
executed by the legal heirs of Subbaegounder, i.e.,the appellant and the
1st plaintiff / daughters is perused. More over, the appellant is not inclined to
proceed with the matter. Through the execution of the said partition deed she
received property, in respect of the undivided share, which is also no way
affected the legitimate right in the remaining shares.
6. Considering the submission made by the appellant and the first
respondent the appeal is dismissed as settled out of Court. The terms of
partition deed shall form part of the decree. However, liberty is granted to
other shares to get remedy if any, as per manner known to law.
7. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, an error has been crept
in, in paragraph No.1 in the earlier order dated 12.09.2023. The said
paragraph No.1 is to be replaced as follows:
“When the matter is taken up for hearing, the appellant Indirani
and the 1st respondent Muthulakshmi, who are the sisters, appeared in
person before this Court and submitted that, in respect of their share
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.688 of 2020
and CMP.No.14189 of 2020
derived from their father / Subbiyagowder, they entered into a
registered partition with regard to their share in the entire suit property
on 10.08.2023. Since their share has been declared in A.S.No.70 of
2013 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Coimbatore, also
agreed between them, hence, the appellant Indirani is not inclined to
proceed with the appeal against the 1st respondent Muthulakshmi and
wants to withdraw the same."
8. Registry is directed to incorporate new paragraph No.1 quoted
above and issue fresh order copy to the parties forthwith.
9. In all other respects, the order dated 12.09.2023 shall remain
unaltered.
15.09.2023
rri
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Neutral citation: Yes/No
To
1.The III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
2. The Subordinate Court, Pollachi.
3.The Section Officer, VR Section,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.688 of 2020
and CMP.No.14189 of 2020
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rri
S.A.No.688 of 2020
and
CMP.No.14189 of 2020
15.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
