The burden of proving insanity, the presumption of sanity, and the principle of approbate and reprobate were the central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Original Side Appeals filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the fair and decreetal order dated 08.11.2022 in Appln.No.4540 of 2021 in E.P.176 of 2018 in C.S.No.793 of 2007.)Mohammed Shaffiq, J.

1. These two appeals are filed challenging the order of the learned Judge dated 08.11.2022 passed in Appln.No.4540 of 2021 whereby the appellants herein were directed to vacate and hand over possession of the suit schedule property on or before 31.12.2022, failing which, the learned Master should pass necessary orders in E.P.No.176 of 2018, and to ensure that the appellants do indeed vacate the premises and adhere to the compromise, which was entered into before the Lok Adalat.

1.1. The above order of the learned Judge is challenged by Mr.R.Balakrishnan and Mr.R.Boopathy in the present appeals viz., O.S.A.Nos.318 and 324 respectively. For ease of reference, we shall refer to them as the appellants 1 and 2 individually and as appellants collectively. Mrs.V.M.Sumathy, sister of the appellants is the 1st Respondent in both the appeals, while Mrs.Soundarammal, mother of the parties is the 3rd respondent in both the appeals and are thus referred to as 1st and 3rd respondents respectively.

2. Brief facts:

a) A suit in C.S.No.793 of 2007 was filed by Mr.R.Boopathy against his mother Mrs.Soundarammal, brother Mr.R.Balakrishnan and sister Mrs.V.M.Sumathy seeking partition and separate possession of two items of the properties described in the Schedule to the Plaint.

b) The matter was referred to Lok Adalat, in which, the issues were settled between the appellants and the respondents herein and a compromise was made by the parties to the suit in the presence of their counsels on 06.02.2008. Pursuant thereto, terms of settlement were drawn among the parties to the suit, whereby the appellants herein agreed to take equally Item No.2 of the suit schedule property, while the mother and sister i.e., respondents 1 and 3 herein agreed to take Item No.1 of the suit schedule property.

c) Pursuant to the above settlement / compromise arrived at among the parties, the appellants sold the property, which was allotted / settled to them i.e., Item 2 of the suit schedule property vide the terms of settlement entered into before the Lok Adalat. The sale consideration in respect of Item 2 of the suit schedule property was apparently shared between the two brothers.

d) Thereafter, a settlement deed was executed on 04.05.2018 by the mother /3rd respondent herein whereby the joint share in the suit schedule property allotted in favour of the 3rd respondent was settled in favour of the daughter i.e., the 1st respondent herein. Consequent to the said settlement, the half share in Item 1 of suit schedule property, which was originally allotted vide compromise deed dated 06.02.2008 to the 3rd respondent, was settled in favour of the 1st respondent with full power of alienation subject to the life estate to the settlor i.e., the 3rd respondent herein.

e) Admittedly, the 1st appellant is occupying the first floor of Item I of the suit schedule property allotted to the 1st and 3rd respondents, while the 2nd appellant herein is occupying the ground floor shop portion and second floor residential portion of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property.

f) Despite the decree passed based on the compromise entered into before the Lok Adalat, the appellants, after agreeing to vacate and deliver vacant possession of Item 1 of the suit schedule property, are continuing to remain in occupation of the same.

g) Hence, Execution Petition in E.P.No.176 of 2018 was filed by the 1st respondent herein against the appellants to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property in their occupation. Pending the same, the first appellant preferred the applications in A.Nos.4717, 4