Madras High Court
Babulal Surana vs Tmt.Varalakshmi (Deceased) on 16 October, 2025
C.R.P.No.4888 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
C.R.P.No.4888 of 2025
&
C.M.P.No.24658 of 2025
1.Babulal Surana
2. B.Lalitha Kanwar ... Petitioners/J.D/Defendants Nos.9 and 10
Vs.
Tmt.Varalakshmi (Deceased)
Represented by her legal heirs
No.32/8 Noor Veerasami Street
Nungambakkam
Chennai – 600 034
1. K.S.Balaji
2. K.S.Govindaraj
3. H.Srilakshmi ... Respondent /Decree Holder/Plaintiffs
Tmt.Mohana Ammal (Deceased)
Represented by her legal heirs
10/5/366, Sai Nagar
Thokkaram Gate (North), Lteguda
Secunderabad
Andhra Pradesh
4. Rukmani
5. Sathyavathi
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm )
C.R.P.No.4888 of 2025
6. Jayababu
7.Vasantha
8.Vidhyavathi
9. Sridhar Babu
10.Kanyalal ... Respondents/J.D/Defendant Nos.1 to 8
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 against the order passed in E.P.No.953 of 2025 in
O.S.No.2181 of 1996 on 10.09.2025 by the learned IX Assistant Judge, City
Civil Courts, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramamurthy
For Respondent : Mr.A.Sriram
ORDER
Heard Mr.V.Ramamurthy and Mr.A.Sriram, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Respondents respectively.
2. The respondents are the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff
Varalakshmi, who had filed O.S.No.2181 of 1996 of partition and separate
possession. The suit was decreed ex parte on 23.07.2007. Thereafter, the
said Varalakshmi, during her life time, initiated final decree proceedings and
even in the final decree proceedings, none of the other respondents came
forward to contest the proceedings and final decree came to passed on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm )
29.07.2015. Thereafter, the Execution Petition has been filed in the year
2025 in E.P.No.953 of 2025 for delivery of possession in terms of the final
decree passed on 29.07.2015.
3. The Execution Petition has been resisted by the 9th and 10th
Judgement Debtors, who have contended that they have already paid a sum
of Rs.6 lakhs to Varalakshmi, the plaintiff even as early as on 21.01.2016 in
lieu of said Varalakshmi relinquishing her interest in the suit property. It is
the further contention of the Judgment Debtors 9 and 10 that they have
become absolute owners of the entire suit property and they have also
purchased the shares of other co-sharers in the suit. However, despite the
counter being filed by the Judgment Debtors 9 and 10/revision petitioners
herein, the Executing Court disbelieved the settlement pleaded by the
Judgment Debtors 9 and 10 and proceeded to order delivery.
4. Mr.V.Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners
would submit that the original owner had obtained a sanction for the
construction of ground plus 2 floors, but however, he had constructed
additional two floors without obtaining prior sanction from the planning
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm )
authorities and attempts to regularize the additional construction went in vain
and therefore, the building, which is lawfully constructed in the suit property,
is restricted to ground plus 2 floors. It is in this context that according to
Mr.V.Ramamurthy, judgment debtors 9 and 10 proceeded to purchase the
shares of the plaintiff so that they will be in a position to enjoy the suit
property conveniently and in a better manner. In fact, I find that the
compromise, which is pleaded by the petitioners, is also a document in
writing, which is alleged to be signed by the deceased Varalakshmi and two
persons, who are relatives of the deceased Varalakshmi, who have signed as
witnesses. He further stated that the original document was produced before
the Executing Court, but only the copy was marked. However, this
contention of Mr.V.Ramamurthy is refuted by Mr.Sriram, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents / decree holders stating that the original
compromise agreement has not seen the light of the day. The Executing
Court has also held that the revision petitioners have not proved the
settlement alleged to have taken place between themselves and the deceased
Varalakshmi. Further, the Executing Court has also found that the agreement
being an unregistered document, it has no sanctity in the eye of law and
proceeded to direct the revision petitioners to handover the property to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm )
respondents/decree holders. It is the case of the respondents/decree holders
that the compromise agreement is a fabricated document and mother of the
respondents never settled the property especially when the property is worth
several lakhs and no prudent property owner would relinquish his/her
interest for a paltry sum of Rs.6 lakhs, that too in the year 2016 when the
Real Estate market has already picked up. He would further submit that at
this stage, the revision petitioners cannot be given any opportunity to defeat
the final decree, which has become final. He would point out the fact that
even in the final decree, the revision petitioners were represented by the
counsel and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the
Executing Court and prays for dismissal of the revision.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side.
6. Under Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is open
to any of the parties to claim that the subject matter in the suit has been
compromise or settled. However, it is for such party claiming that there has
been a settlement to prove and establish such lawful settlement, to be entitled
to any orders. In the present case the revision petitioners bank their case on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm )
an unregistered compromise agreement dated 21.01.2016. According to the
petitioners, they have paid a sum of Rs.6 lakhs to the sole plaintiff
Varalakshmi during her life time in full quit of her share in the suit property
and subsequently, they have been in physical possession and enjoyment of
the entire suit property in their own right and that too, after purchasing the
shares of the other co-sharers.
7. It is strange that despite having filed a suit for partition in the year
1993 before this Court, preliminary decree having been passed way back in
2007 and final decree also having been passed in July 2015, the plaintiff
never took any step during her life time, though she was alive till 2018, to
file any application for recovery of possession pursuant to the final decree
passed on 29.07.2015. Even her legal representatives, who are the contesting
respondents herein, have not chosen to initiate any steps from the date of
demise of Varalakshmi in the year 2018 until 2025 when the Execution
Petition came to be filed. In the light of the conduct and silence of the
contesting respondents and before them Varalakshmi, the sole plaintiff, there
is a possibility that the case set up by the revision petitioners that
Varalakshmi received some amount in full and final settlement of her share,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm )
is probable. It is also probable that revision petitioners / judgment debtors 9
and 10, have purchased the share of Varalakshmi by entering into a
compromise agreement. However, considering the fact that said settlement
agreement has not been tested before the Court though it was raised by way
of counter, I am inclined to remit the matter to the Executing Court by setting
aside the order passed by it. The petitioners shall produce the original of the
compromise agreement dated 21.01.2016 before the Executing Court and
Executing Court shall give an opportunity to the petitioners to prove the
genuineness of the said compromise agreement dated 21.01.2016. The said
compromise agreement shall be subject to the provisions of the Registration
Act, 1908 and Stamp Act, 1899 including permissibility to look into it for
collateral purposes and it is open to the respondents/decree holders to raise
their objections with regard to the admissibility of the said agreement before
the Executing Court. The Executing Court shall conduct enquiry with regard
to the proof and genuineness of the compromise pleaded by the revision
petitioners and such enquiry shall be conducted, after giving fair opportunity
to both parties and the Executing Court shall pass final orders within three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and subject to the
result of such enquiry regarding the truth, validity and admissibility of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm )
compromise agreement, further orders shall be passed in the Execution
Petition. Any observation that have been made in this order are limited to
the purpose of deciding this revision and Executing Court shall not be
influenced by the any of the observations made in this order.
8. This Civil Revision Petition is allowed with the above directions.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
16.10.2025
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gpa
To
IX Assistant Judge,
City Civil Courts, Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm )
P.B.BALAJI.J.,
gpa
16.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm )
