Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2765 (MAD)

Dhanalakshmi v. B. V. Govindaraman

2018-09-05

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. These two appeals have been filed against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.64 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thanjavur. By the said Judgment and Decree dated 24.06.1992, the Subordinate Court, Thanjavur had partly decreed O.S.No.64 of 1989. 2. The following family chart would be useful to indicate the relationship among the parties. P.S.VENKATACHALAPATHY Wife-1 Wife-2 Vishalakshi Ammal(D-1) Nanni Ammal (D-2) B.V. Govindaraman (Plaintiff) 1. B.V. Devadoss (D-3) 2. B.V. Jegannathan @ Jegan (D-4) 3. B.V. Rajan (D-5) 4. Dhanalakshmi (D-6) 5. Vimala (D-7) 3. The father B.S. Venkatachalapathy had executed a Will dated 11.09.1972. He bequeathed 'A' schedule property to the plaintiff B.V. Govindaraman. He bequeathed 'C', 'D' and 'E' schedule properties to the defendants-3 to 5 namely, B.V.Devadoss, B.V.Jegannathan @ Jegan and B.V. Rajan. There was also one more schedule property which was given in common which was 'F' schedule property. Since defendants-2, 3, 4 & 5 resided in a portion of the 'A' schedule property, the plaintiff B.V. Govindaraman instituted O.S.No.64 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, seeking declaration of title over a 'A' schedule property and 6/35th share in 'F' schedule property. 4. The suit was decreed with respect to declaration of title and partition. As against that judgment, defendants-2 to 5 had filed A.S. No.552 of 1997 and defendants-6 & 7 had filed A.S.No.522 of 1997. Both the appeals have been pending before this Court for the past more than twenty years. 5. In the meanwhile, the first appellant Nanni Ammal and second defendant Vishalakshmi Ammal also died. Her legal representatives were already on record. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants in A.S.No.522 of 1997 filed a memo which was received on 19.09.2013 stating that they have no instructions. There was no appearance on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants in A.S. No.552 of 1997. 7. Consequently, this Court directed the Registry to issue notice to the appellants and the respondents through the Subordinate Court, Thanjavur. Accordingly, notice was accordingly issued. 8. The first respondent appeared before this Court. He is represented by Mr.M.Saravanan, learned counsel who is also present. Mr.M.Saravanan, learned counsel for the first respondent has examined the facts of the case and informed the Court that the parties had settled the issues among themselves. Accordingly, notice was accordingly issued. 8. The first respondent appeared before this Court. He is represented by Mr.M.Saravanan, learned counsel who is also present. Mr.M.Saravanan, learned counsel for the first respondent has examined the facts of the case and informed the Court that the parties had settled the issues among themselves. Defendants-3 to 5 had vacated the 'B' schedule properties and handed over possession to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had executed a release deed over 'F' schedule property. Similarly, defendants-6 & 7 also executed a release deed in favour of defendants-3 to 5. The parties have also entered into a written agreement called 'Samarasa Udanpadikkai' confirming the above facts. The first respondent who is the plaintiff has filed an affidavit and has enclosed a xerox copy of the memorandum of compromise and also the encumbrance certificate of the property showing the release deed executed as mentioned above. 9. In view of the above facts, since the parties themselves have settled the issues amicably, nothing further survives in these appeals. 10. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed as settled out of Court. The affidavit of the first respondent and the copy of the 'Samarasa Udanpadikkai' and the copies of the encumbrance certificates shall form a part of decree in both the appeals. No costs.