Madras High Court
Kalaiselvan ... 1St vs Sivakumar ... 2Nd ... on 21 February, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
S.A.No.620 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
S.A.No.620 of 2009 and
C.M.P.No.20336 of 2017
Kalaiselvan ... 1st Defendant/1st Respondent/Appellant
-vs-
1. Sivakumar ... 2nd Plaintiff/Appellant/1st Respondent
2. Jayaraman
3. Selvarani
4. Komathi
5. Chitra
6. Suguna ... Defendants 2 to 6/Respondents 2 to 6/
Respondents 2 to 6
Prayer: Second Appeal Suit is filed under Section 100 of CPC to allow the
Second Appeal dismissing the suit and setting aside the Decree and
Judgment passed in A.S.No.16 of 2007 dated 29.11.2008 on the file of the
District Judge, Tiruvannamalai and setting aside the Decree in O.S.No.163
of 2000 dated 31.01.2007 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge,
Thiruvannamalai.
For Appellant : Mrs.D.Malarvizhi
For Mr.M.P.Jayaprakash
For R1 : Mr.J.Ramakrishnan
For R2, R4 to R6 : No Appearance (Refused)
For R3 : No Appearance
*****
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
This Second Appeal is listed today for recording the Memo of
Compromise.
2. Originally, a suit in O.S.No.163 of 2000 was filed by one
Sanjeevi Ammal, seeking partition. During pendency of the suit, Sanjeevi
Ammal died and on the basis of her last registered Will dated 01.05.2000,
the 2nd plaintiff, namely, Sivakumar was impleaded in the suit. The suit had
been decreed in part. Challenging the decree and judgment passed in the
suit, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.16 of 2007, in which, the Appellate Court
modified the shares. Aggrieved by such modification of shares, the 1 st
defendant is before this Court by filing the instant Second Appeal.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, both the
appellant/1st defendant and the 2nd plaintiff/1st respondent herein, who
appeared before this Court physically, have filed a Memorandum of
Compromise dated 20.11.2024, wherein it has been stated as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“1. The 1st respondent represented before the Honourable
court that he needs amounts instead of his shares in the
property. The same has been agreed by the Appellant before
this Honourable court.
2. The 1st respondent claimed an amount of Rs.7½ lakhs
(seven lakhs fifty thousand only) for his shares and the same
has to be paid before 20th November 2024 and requested the
appellant if it is paid through Bank the same was accepted by
the Appellant.
3. As per the terms agreed the Appellant paid an entire
amount through Bank Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs) in reference
on UTR/RRN KKBK R12024111600935701 on 16/11/2024
and an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand) in
Reference No.UTR/RRN KKBKR52024111800740187 on
18/11/2024.
4. Without prejudice tot their right both of them agreed
amicably settled in the above appeal and declare that the terms
of Memorandum of Understanding arrived at between them and
recorded herein are fair and bonafide and in interest of all the
parties.
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.,
ar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The 1st respondent has conceded before this Court that he had
received the amount in lieu of shares declared by the Trial Court.
5. In view of the above submission and recording the Memo of
Compromise, this Second Appeal stands allowed. The decree and judgment
of the First Appellate Court is hereby set aside and the suit filed by the 2nd
plaintiff is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
21.02.2025
Internet: Yes / No
ar
To:
1. The District Judge,
Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Thiruvannamalai.
3. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
