Madras High Court
Ganasundari vs V.Sakuntala on 1 February, 2024
S.A.No.1383 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
S.A.No.1383 of 2010
1.Ganasundari
2.C.Thanikachalam
3.C.Viswanathan … Appellants
-Vs-
1.V.Sakuntala
2.K.Rajakumari
3.G.Sundari
4.B.Suriyakumari (died)
5.M.Chandrika
6.D.Balaiah
7.B.Divviya Pradha ...Respondents
(R4 died, R6 to R7 were brought on record as
legal heirs of the deceased R4 vide order dated 09.01.2024
in C.M.P.No.29529 of 2023)
Prayer:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2009 in A.S.No.542
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1383 of 2010
of 2007 passed by the learned III Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2007 in O.S.No.1680 of
2004 passed by the learned XV Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.
For appellants : Mr.Sundar Narayan
For respondents 1 & 3 : Mr.O.Padma Prakash
For respondent 2 : Mr.V.Manisekaran
For respondent 4 : died
For respondents 5 to 7 : Mr.R.Thiyagarajan
*****
JUDGMENT
The respondents 1, 4 & 6 are before this Court in this Second
Appeal. This Second Appeal has been filed as against judgment and
decree dated 23.11.2009 in A.S.No.542 of 2007 passed by the 3rd
Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai, confirming judgment and decree
dated 16.03.2007 in O.S.No.1680 of 2004 passed by the XV Assistant
City Civil Judge, Chennai.
2. The suit, which was filed for partition by 4th & 5th
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondents/plaintiffs, was decreed by the Trial Court and preliminary
decree was passed on 16.03.2007. An appeal filed in A.S.No.542 of 2007
was dismissed, confirming the preliminary decree passed by the Trial
Court. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 1, 4 & 6 are before this
Court on this Second Appeal. Pending the Second Appeal, first appellant
and 4th respondent died.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants,
respondents 1 to 3 & respondents 5 to 7 submit that during pendency of
this Second Appeal, the parties have compromised the issue and pursuant
to the compromise, they have entered into a memo of compromise dated
31.01.2024, whereby the parties agreed that the preliminary decree to be
confirmed.
4. The appellants 2 & 3, respondents 1 to 3, 5 to 7 have signed
the compromise memo along with the counsel on record. The appellants 2
& 3, respondents 3 & 5 to 7 are present before this Court and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondents 1 and 2 are stated to be admitted in hospital and they are
not able to be present before this Court.
5. As per Clause 9 of the memo of compromise filed by the
parties, both the appellants and the respondents submit that a final decree
may be passed in terms of memo of compromise, entered into between
the parties.
6. This Court has given its anxious consideration on the
submissions made on both sides.
7. Since the issue has been compromised between the parties
and memo of compromise has been entered between the parties, this
Second Appeal is ordered in terms of memo of compromise dated
31.01.2024. The final decree in terms of the memo of compromise dated
31.01.2024 is passed and the memo of compromise shall form a part of
the final decree.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. In view of the final decree passed, the parties are directed to
pay respective Court fees in respect of the share allotted in their favour.
01.02.2024
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
apd
To
1. The III Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai.
2. The XV Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.
3. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
apd
01.02.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
