Madras High Court
D.V.Vanitha vs S.Rajkumar on 8 January, 2024
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.01.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN
THILAKAVADI
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
1. D.V.Vanitha
W/o.S.Venkatesan ... Appellant
in all three appeals
Vs.
1. S.Rajkumar
Son of S.Subramaniam
2. R.Dayananthan
Son of Rajamaikkam ....Respondents
in A.S.No.524 of 2016
1. S.Subramaniyam
Son of P.V.Sundaram Chettiar
2. S.Kalyani
Wife of S.Subramaniam
3. S.Venkatesh
Son of Subramaniam
4. S.Rajkumar
Page Nos.1/39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
Son Subramaniam
5. G.Krishnamoorthy
Son of Gopal Chettiar
6. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Rep. by its Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager
NH7, Kondalampatti, Salem-636 010. ....Respondents
in A.S.No.591 of 2020
1. S.Kalyani
Wife of S.Subramaniam
2. S.Subramaniyam
Son of P.V.Sundaram Chettiar
3. S.Venkatesh
Son of Subramaniam
4. S.Rajkumar
Son Subramaniam
5. G.Krishnamoorthy
Son of Gopal Chettiar
6. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Rep. by its Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager
NH7, Kondalampatti, Salem-636 010. ....Respondents
in A.S.No.679 of 2020
Appeal Suit No.524 of 2016 filed under Section 96 read with Order
41 Rule 1 of of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying to set aside the
judgment and decree dated 29.04.2016 passed in O.S.No.92 of 2009 on the
file of the I Additional District Court, Salem.
Page Nos.2/39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
Appeal Suit No.591 of 2020 filed under Section 96 read with Order
41 Rule 1 of of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying to set aside the
judgment and decree dated 16.04.2016 passed in O.S.No.91 of 2013 on the
file of the I Additional District Court, Salem.
Appeal Suit No.679 of 2020 filed under Section 96 read with Order
41 Rule 1 of of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying to set aside the
judgment and decree dated 16.04.2016 passed in O.S.No.92 of 2013 on the
file of the I Additional District Court, Salem.
For Appellant in all appeals : Mr.C.Saikrishna
representing Ms.V.Srimathi
For Respondents
in A.S.No.524 of 2016 : Mr.R.Jayaprakash
for R1
Mr.C.Saikrishna
representing
Mr.Avinash Wadwani, for R2
in A.S.Nos.591 & 679 of 2020 : Mr.C.Jagadish
Mr.K.R.Masilamani
for R1 to R4
R5 - given up
Mr.R.Sreedhar
Ms.R.Renukadevi
for R6
Page Nos.3/39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,]
Captioned three appeals are listed under the cause list caption 'FOR
RECORDING COMPROMISE'.
2. A thumbnail sketch of facts imperative for appreciating this
compromise judgment / decree are that a suit in 'O.S.No.92 of 2009' [this
suit shall hereinafter be referred to as 'I suit' for the sake of brevity,
convenience and clarity] on the file of the 'I Additional District Court, Salem'
[hereinafter 'trial Court' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] was
filed by one Mr.S.Rajkumar, son of Mr.S.Subramaniam, inter alia with a
prayer to set aside a sale deed dated 10.03.2006; that 'O.S.No.91 of 2013
(O.S.No.6011 of 2019)' [this suit shall hereinafter be referred to as 'II suit'
for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] was filed by one
Ms.D.V.Vanitha (wife of Mr.S.Venaktesh) also on the file of the trial Court;
that another suit in 'O.S.No.92 of 2013 (O.S.No.6012 of 2019)' [this suit
shall hereinafter be referred to as 'III suit' for the sake of brevity, convenience
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
and clarity] was also filed by Ms.D.V.Vanitha, wife of Mr.S.Venkatesh on
the file of the trial Court; that II and III suits were filed with prayers inter
alia for specific performance qua immovable property; that after full contest,
I suit was decreed by trial Court in and by judgment and decree dated
29.04.2016; that II and III suits were dismissed (after full contest) in and by
a common judgement and decree dated 16.04.2019 by the trial Court; that
'A.S.No.524 of 2016', 'A.S.No.591 of 2020' and 'A.S.No.679 of 2020' shall
hereinafter be referred to as 'I AS', 'II AS' and 'III AS' respectively for the sake
of convenience and clarity; that I AS, II AS and III AS arise out of the
judgement and decree in I suit, II suit and III suit respectively; that parties
resorted to Adhoc Mediation and the parties have arrived at a settlement and
terms of settlement have been reduced to writing by way of a 'compromise
memo dated 03.03.2023' [hereinafter 'said compromise memo' for the sake
of convenience and clarity]; that said compromise memo has been filed in
this Court under cover of a common memo in I AS, II AS and III AS being
common memo dated 11.09.2023; that parties and their respective counsel
are present before this Court; that ranks of the parties vary in three suits and
therefore we deem it appropriate to refer to the parties by their names.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
3. Mr.S.Subramaniam, son of Mr.P.V.Sundaram Chettiar, represented
by Mr.C.Jagadish, learned counsel, Ms.S.Kalyani, wife of
Mr.S.Subramaniam, represented by Mr.C.Jagadish, learned counsel,
Mr.S.Rajkumar, son of Mr.Subramaniam, represented by Mr.R.Jayaprakash,
learned counsel, Mr.S.Venkatesh, son of Mr.Subramaniam, represented by
Mr.C.Jagadish, learned counsel and Ms.D.V.Vanitha, wife of
Mr.S.Venkatesh, represented by Mr.C.Saikrishna, learned counsel are before
us. 'Indian Oil Corporation Limited' ['IOCL' for the sake of brevity]
represented by its Divisional Retail Sales Manager is represented by
Mr.R.Sreedhar, learned counsel on record along with Ms.R.Renukadevi,
learned counsel is before this Court.
4. All the aforementioned counsel and all the aforementioned parties
submit in one voice in unison that said compromise memo has been signed
on their own volition after mediation or in other words, all the counsel and
parties submit that the Adhoc mediation adverted to supra culminated in said
compromise memo and request this Court to pass a decree in terms of said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
compromise memo.
5. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to record that
Mr.G.Krishnamoorthy, son of Gopal Chettiar, who is fifth respondent in
II AS and III AS has been given up by the appellant, who is present in Court
and counter signed by the counsel representing the appellant. Endorsements
made in the case file in this regard are as follows:
Endorsement in II AS :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
Endorsement in III AS :
6. Aforementioned endorsements speak for themselves. It is
submitted that Mr.G.Krishnamoorthy, son of Gopal Chettiar, was originally
added as a party as he executed a power of attorney in favour of
Mr.R.Dayananthan (second respondent in I AS and we are informed that he
is no more i.e., since deceased)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
7. AADHAR Cards of the aforementioned parties were produced
before this Court and scanned reproduction of the same are as follows:
AADHAR Card of Mr.S.Subramaniam:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
AADHAR Card of Ms.S.Kalyani:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
AADHAR Card of Mr.S.Rajkumar:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
AADHAR Card of Mr.S.Venkatesh:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
AADHAR Card of Ms.D.V.Vanitha:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
8. The narrative thus far captures the position that all the parties
concerned and their respective counsel are before us. As regards IOCL,
Mr.R.Sreedhar, learned counsel submits that there is difficulty for the officer
concerned to be present in Court as he is traveling and requests for
dispensing with the presence of the officer concerned. Learned counsel
submits that IOCL is a formal party and they were not a party to Mediation
(as mediation was an inter se family issue) but learned counsel, on
instructions, confirms that IOCL will stand bound by terms of said
compromise memo.
9. All learned counsel and all parties submit that said compromise
memo is a common memo in I AS, II AS and III AS and a scanned
reproduction of the same together with memo dated 11.09.2023 under a
cover of which the same has been filed in this Court is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
10. In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned three appeals are
now disposed of in terms of said compromise memo, which shall form part
of the decree and obviously, parties will stand governed by clauses in said
compromise memo. In other words, there will be a common compromise
decree in the captioned three appeals i.e., I AS, II AS and III AS in terms of
said compromise memo which will stand annexed to and form part of the
compromise decree. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (K.G.T.,J.)
08.01.2024
(1/2)
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-speaking
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
mk
To
I Additional District Judge
I Additional District Court
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
M.SUNDAR, J.,
and
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.,
mk
A.S.Nos.524 of 2016, 591 of 2020 and 679 of 2020
08.01.2024
(1/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
