Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1678
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. SUNDAR, J.
Murugesan and Others - Appellant
Versus
Andisamy @ Raja and Others - Respondent
A.S(MD)Nos.158 of 2010 and 185 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010
Decided on : 28-04-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.V.Ramakrishnan.
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Govindarajan.
The court upheld the terms of the compromise, which included the admission of the nature of suit properties, the payment of a specified sum, and the maintenance of a common ancestral property.
Headnote:
Compromise Decree - Property Dispute - A.S(MD)No.158 of 2010, A.S(MD)No.185 of 2011 - The court passed a compromise decree in terms of the memorandum of compromise, which included the admission of the nature of suit properties, payment of a specified sum, and the maintenance of a common ancestral property. The decree was based on the terms of the compromise dated 28.04.2018 and the schedule of properties.
Fact of the Case:
The parties arrived at a compromise, and a memorandum of compromise dated 28.04.2018 was presented to the court. The litigants confirmed their understanding of the terms and requested a compromise decree to be passed in two appeal suits.
Finding of the Court:
The court decreed in terms of the memorandum of compromise, acknowledging the admission of the nature of suit properties, the payment of a specified sum, and the maintenance of a common ancestral property.
Issues:
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the terms of the compromise, which included the admission of the nature of suit properties, the payment of a specified sum, and the maintenance of a common ancestral property.
Final Decision: The court passed a compromise decree in both appeal suits, A.S(MD)No.158 of 2010 and A.S(MD)No.185 of 2011, in terms of the memorandum of compromise dated 28.04.2018 and the schedule of properties. No costs were awarded, and the connected M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010 was closed.
1. Appeal in A.S(MD)No.158 of 2010 being prior in point of time shall be referred to as 'senior appeal' and appeal in A.S(MD)No.185 of 2011 being later in point of time, shall be referred to as 'junior appeal'.
2. Mr.V.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel on record for two appellants in senior appeal, i.e., Murugesan and Umamaheswari [who are respondents 3 and 4 in junior appeal] is before this Court. Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned counsel on record for respondents 1 and 2, i.e., Andisamy @ Raja and Vijaya, in senior appeal [who are appellants respectively in junior appeal], is before this Court.
3. To be noted, respondents 3 and 4 in senior appeal, i.e., Savithiri and Maheswari are respondents 1 and 2 in junior appeal. I am informed that Savithiri and Maheswari have remained ex parte throughout. Under the aforesaid circumstances, I am informed that the aforementioned four litigants have arrived at a compromise.
4. All the aforesaid four litigants, who are parties to the compromise, are before this Court with their respective counsel. They have placed before me a memorandum of compromise, dated 28.04.2018, duly signed by all the aforesaid four litigants and their respective counsel.
5. All the aforesaid four litigants have produced their respective photo identity cards along with self-attested photocopies of the same. The photo identity cards are Government identity cards in the form of Aadhaar card, Ration card, Voter's identity card, etc.
6. All the four litigants submit that they have signed/affixed thumb impression in the aforesaid memorandum of compromise after understanding the contents of the same or after having it read over to them and after understanding the contents of the same. All the litigants agree that the terms are in order and they reiterate the terms of the memorandum of compromise.
7. Both the learned counsel, on instructions from their respective parties, request that a compromise decree be passed in terms of the aforesaid memorandum of compromise in the aforesaid two appeals.
8. Two aspects in the memorandum of compromise are to be noted. One is in clause No.3 of the memorandum of compromise, the fact that the two above mentioned individuals, i.e., Savithiri and Maheswari remained ex parte throughout, has been clearly mentioned. The second aspect is in clause No.3, there is also a mention that respondents 1 and 2 in the senior appeal, i.e., Andisamy @ Raja and Vijaya, shall jointly be paid a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- [Rupees eleven lakhs only]. Both litigants, i.e., Andisamy @ Raja and Vijaya confirmed that they have received the said sum today.
9. Besides this, there is also a schedule of properties in Tamil, annexed to the memorandum of compromise and forming part of the memorandum of compromise. To be noted, that has been captioned as 'Description of Properties'.
10. In the light of the narrative supra, there shall be a decree in both the appeals, i.e., A.S(MD)No.158 of 2010 and A.S(MD)No.185 of 2011 in terms of the aforesaid memorandum of compromise. I deem it appropriate to extract the terms of compromise, which reads as follows:
“Terms of compromise:
i. The respondents 1 and 2 in A.S(MD)No.158 of 2010 and who are the appellants in A.S(MD)No.185 of 2011 admit that the suit properties except item No.11 ere the absolute and self-acquired properties of the Late.Mani Asari and admit that the mother of the appellants in A.S.No. 158 of 2010, Late Tmt.Masilamani was the legally wedded wife of the Late Maniasari and that appellants in A.S(MD)No.158 of 2010 are children of the said Mani Asari and Late.Masilamani.
ii. The respondents 1 and 2 in A.S(MD)No.158 of 2010/Appellants in A.S(MD)No.185 of 2011 accept and concede to the fact that the suit properties except item No.11 being the self-acquired properties of Late Mani Asari, the settlement deed dated 10.01.2005 marked as Ex.B14 in the said suit is true and genuine and binding on them and therefore, the suit properties except item No.11 are the absolute properties of 1st app
