Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J
J.Sujatha @ July – Appellant
Versus
M.Sathya (Deceased) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background on suit and properties involved (Para 1 , 3 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 2. arguments on illegality of partial partition and rights of non-parties (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. counterarguments supporting validity of partial compromise (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 13) |
| 4. court’s analysis upholding validity of recorded compromise (Para 14 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. court’s reasoning on lawfulness of partial compromise under cpc (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
ORDER
The revision has been filed at the instance of the 5th defendant, challenging the order of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, recording joint compromise memo entered into between the 2nd plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4.
2. I have heard Mr. K. V. Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr. A. K. Raghavulu, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/ 2nd plaintiff and Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.V. Babu, would state that the suit has been filed for partition and pending the suit, the 1st plaintiff died and thereafter, the 2nd plaintiff has proceeded to enter into a compromise with defendants 1 to 4 alone
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
