JUDGMENT : 1. Today, the Application Nos.721 and 3134 of 2013 in C.S.No.496 of 2009 and the Original Application No.648 of 2009 in C.S.No.498 of 2009 have been listed before this Court. 2. On 17.3.2014, this Court passed the following order in A.No.721 of 2013 and it reads as follows:- “This application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order XXIV Rule 4 and Section 151 CPC praying issue an interim direction directing the second respondent to sign the necessary forms and issue no objection to UCO Bank, Gandhi Nagar Branch, Chennai and State Bank of Mysore, Shatri Nagar Branch, Chennai, for the disbursal of the amounts as per the details given in Para 9 in the affidavit to the applicant, respondents 1 and 2 in equal shares, pending disposal of the suit. 2. Para 9 of the affidavit reads as follows:- "9. The applicant states that late Mrs. Krishna Venkatesan had maintained a savings bank account with UCO Bank, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar and had made fixed deposits in UCO Bank, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar and with State Bank of Mysore, Shastry Nagar Branch, Shastri Nagar. The applicant states that the deceased first defendant had also maintained accounts and made deposits in other financial institutions, the details of which are not readily available with the applicant. The applicant states that the details of the bank accounts and deposits made by the deceased first defendant, which are at present available with the applicant, are as follows: No. Bank Account Details Amount in Account 1. UCO Bank, Gandhi Nagar Branch Savings Bank account No.1605 Rs. 3,88,558.70/- 2. UCO Bank, Gandhi Nagar Branch, Fixed Deposit No. 01580310035672 Rs. 3,00,000/- 3. State Bank of Mysore, Shastri Nagar Branch Savings Bank Account No.54005196462 Rs. 33,203.59/- 4. State Bank of Mysore, Shastri Nagar Branch RID No.64000584374 Rs. 85,668/- 5. State Bank of Mysore, Shastri Nagar Branch RID No.64019738713 Rs. 84,048/- 6. State Bank of Mysore, Shastri Nagar Branch RID No.64039751491 Rs. 1,00,000/- 7. State Bank of Mysore, Shastri Nagar Branch RID No.64046279222 Rs. 49,360/- 8. State Bank of Mysore, Shastri Nagar Branch RID No.64039751559 Rs. 78,203/- 9. State Bank of Mysore, Shastri Nagar Branch RID No.64058913326 Rs. 53,649/- 10. State Bank of Mysore, Shastri Nagar Branch RID No.64059136211 Rs. 53,632/- 11. State Bank of Mysore, Shastri Nagar Branch RID No.64060603875 Rs. 32,134/- TOTAL Rs.12,58,456.30/- 3. 49,360/- 8. State Bank of Mysore, Shastri Nagar Branch RID No.64039751559 Rs. 78,203/- 9. State Bank of Mysore, Shastri Nagar Branch RID No.64058913326 Rs. 53,649/- 10. State Bank of Mysore, Shastri Nagar Branch RID No.64059136211 Rs. 53,632/- 11. State Bank of Mysore, Shastri Nagar Branch RID No.64060603875 Rs. 32,134/- TOTAL Rs.12,58,456.30/- 3. In view of the common order passed in Application No.3134 of 2013 in C.S.No.496 of 2009 and Original Application No.648 of 2009 in C.S.No.498 of 2009 today, Mr. K.V. Babu, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/3rd defendant has no objection in allowing this application. Mr. T.V. Krishna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/2nd defendant has also no objection in allowing this application. 4. It is stated that the amounts in deposits mentioned in the application as above will be much higher in view of the accrued interest and all the three parties are agreed for equal distribution of the amounts. 5. Accordingly, by consent of the applicant/plaintiff and the respondents 1 and 2/defendants 2 and 3, they are entitled to share the amounts in fixed deposit equally. The respective banks shall issue pay order in favour of each one of the parties in equal amount and close the fixed deposit of the amounts paid inclusive of the accrued interest, subject to the parties signing the necessary documents as required. This application is ordered as above.” 3. Thereafter in continuation of the above proceedings, it is stated that settlement was arrived between both the parties. 4. When these matters were called, both parties in both the suits appeared in person. A Joint Memo of Compromise signed by both parties and their respective counsel has been filed in the suits themselves and requested to take both the suits and pray that a decree may be passed in terms of the Compromise Memo. Hence, both the suits are taken up for disposal. 5. Civil Suit No.496 of 2009 is filed praying to grant decree and judgment as follows:- (a) For partition of the schedule mentioned the properties into four equal shares and allot 1/4th share to the plaintiff taking into account all the facts pertaining to the location and value of the schedule mentioned the properties by appointment an Advocate Commission. 5. Civil Suit No.496 of 2009 is filed praying to grant decree and judgment as follows:- (a) For partition of the schedule mentioned the properties into four equal shares and allot 1/4th share to the plaintiff taking into account all the facts pertaining to the location and value of the schedule mentioned the properties by appointment an Advocate Commission. (b) Directing the defendants to pay costs of this suit and rant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 6. Civil Suit No.498 of 2009 is filed praying to grant decree and judgment as follows:- (a) for a declaration, declaring that the Settlement Deed dated 27.02.2009 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant herein, registered as Document No.571 of 2009 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Adyar, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff; (b) for a declaration, declaring that the Settlement Deed dated 27.02.2009 executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff herein, registered as Document No.573 of 2009 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Adyar, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff; (c) for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or anybody claiming either under or through them from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit property; (d) for the cost of the suit; (e) for any other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. 7. The Joint Memo of Compromise reads as follows: “It is humbly submitted that by an order dated 10/04/2014, Item 2 of the Schedule in C.S.No.496 was ordered to be sold to one Mr. Hari Baskaran and accordingly, sale was also completed in respect of the said property. The property being Item 3 of the Suit Schedule in C.S.No.496 of 2009 was allotted exclusively to Mrs. Dharani Premchandran, who is the Plaintiff in C.S.No.496 of 2009. It is further submitted that with respect to the property being Item 1 of the Schedule to C.S.No.496 of 2009, situate at Plot No. B 170A, Old No.13, New No.4, 11th Cross Street, Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020, it was agreed to be divided between Mr. Dharani Premchandran, who is the Plaintiff in C.S.No.496 of 2009. It is further submitted that with respect to the property being Item 1 of the Schedule to C.S.No.496 of 2009, situate at Plot No. B 170A, Old No.13, New No.4, 11th Cross Street, Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020, it was agreed to be divided between Mr. V. Balan, the 3rd Defendant in C.S.No.496 of 2009 to an extent of 3/4th share and Mrs. Swarnalekha Durairajan, the 2nd Defendant in C.S.No.496 of 2009 to an extent of 1/4th share. It is further submitted that efforts were taken to bring the above said property for sale and since there were no purchasers available to purchase the said property, the 2nd and 3rd Defendant in C.S.No.496 of 2009, who are entitled to 1/4th and 3/4th share respectively over the said property have desired to develop the said property on a Joint Development basis with Swathi Builders, represented by its Partner, Mr. Prabakar, having office at Swathi Centre, New No.5, Ananda Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018, for which, an offer letter has also been received. Accordingly, the parties are filing the present Joint Memo of Compromise to record the agreement for Joint Development agreed between the 2nd and 3rd defendant in the said C.S.No.496 of 2009 and to record the same and pass such further and necessary orders. The parties further hereby agree that the Plaintiff in C.S.No.496 of 2009, as agreed earlier, shall execute necessary Deed of Release/Settlement in favour of the 2nd and 3rd defendants in C.S.No.496 of 2009 over the above said property in lieu of the allotment of Item 3 of the Schedule to C.S.No.496 of 2009, in her favour. The 2 settlement Deeds executed by mother as mentioned in C.S.498/09 prayer may be declared as null and void. It is further submitted that with respect to distribution of the various deposits, the same may be ordered to be distributed in equal shares between the plaintiff and the 2nd and 3rd defendants in C.S.No.496 of 2009, as prayed in Appln.No.721 of 2013 as per order, however, after the execution of the release/settlement deed aforesaid after taking accounts by Mr. V. Balan. It is humbly prayed that the above joint compromise may therefore be recorded and a decree in terms of the above joint compromise may be passed and the joint compromise memo may form part of the decree and judgment.” 8. V. Balan. It is humbly prayed that the above joint compromise may therefore be recorded and a decree in terms of the above joint compromise may be passed and the joint compromise memo may form part of the decree and judgment.” 8. The memo of compromise dated 9/27.4.2013 has been signed by the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3 and the counsel appearing for both sides. The above joint compromise memo is recorded. Both the suits are decreed in terms of compromise memo as follows:- 1. The plaintiff in C.S.No.496 of 2009 shall execute necessary release/settlement deed in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 in C.S.No.496 of 2009 over the item No.1 to the schedule to C.S.No.496 of 2009 in lieu of the allotment of item No.3 of the schedule to C.S.No.496 of 2009 in her favour. 2. Consequently, the following two settlement deeds executed by the deceased mother, the first defendant in C.S.No.496 of 2009 are declared as null and void: (a) The Settlement Deed dated 27.02.2009 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant in C.S.No.496 of 2009, registered as Document No.571 of 2009 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Adyar. (b) The Settlement Deed dated 27.02.2009 executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff in C.S.No.496 of 2009, registered as Document No.573 of 2009 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Adyar. 3. As already ordered in A.No.721 of 2013 on 17.3.2014 as above, the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3 in C.S.No.496 of 2009 are entitled to share the amounts in fixed deposit equally, however, after execution of the settlement/release deed as above. The respective banks shall issue pay order in favour of each one of the parties in equal amount and close the fixed deposit of the amounts paid inclusive of the accrued interest, subject to the parties signing the necessary documents as required. 4. The Compromise memo shall form part of the Decree. 5. Both parties shall bear their respective costs. 6. Consequently, connected Original Application and the Applications are closed.