Meenathal (Deceased) v. Jain (Died)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN 1.Meenathal (Deceased) 2.Shunmugha 3.Prethivi Raj Pallavarayar 4.Harikrishnan Pallavarayar (Petitioner 3 & 4 are declared as major and the second petitioner discharged from their guardianship, vide order of court dated 04.11.2022, made in CMP.Nos.11433 & 11439 of 2022 in A.S. No.2 of 2009 by RHJ) 5.Suganyadevi 6.S.Mohan 7.Kousalya (Appellants 5 to 7 brought on record as 1st appellant vide order of Court dated 16.10.2015 made in MP.No.1 of 2015) ... Appellants Vs.
1.Jayan 2.Manju Meera 3.Anjana 4.Aditya Jayan 5.Kamalamma.G (RR2 to 5 brought into records as LRs of the 1st respondent, vide court order dated 31.01.2022 1/5
made in CMP.Nos.19795 and 19796 of 2021 in AS.No.2 of 2009 (AANJ)
6. P.Sathya (R6 is impleaded vide order of Court dated 07.09.2023 made in CMP.No.22382/2022 in A.S. No.2/2009 (TVTSJ) ... Respondents PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgement and Decree passed in O.S. No.26 of 2007 dated 31.07.2008 on the file of the Additional District and Fast Track Court No.III, Dharapuram, Erode District in so far as judgement and decree for specific performance in respect of 'A' schedule of the suit property by directing the appellant to execute the sale deed within a period of two months is concerned.
For Appellants : Mr.V.R. Kamalanathan For R1 : Died For R2 to R5 : Mr.V.Kadhirvelu For R6 : Mr.Dinesh Kumar
JUDGMENT
Challenging the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants are before this Court on appeal.
2. Both side learned counsel's submit that pending appeal, compromise has been arrived at between the parties and as per the compromise, the 2/5
second appellant has executed a sale deed in favour of 6th respondent on 14.12.2023 and that he can withdraw the deposit made before the trial Court. A Joint memo dated 18.12.2023 is filed by the learned counsel's for the appellant, respondents 2 to 5 and 6th respondent stating that the entire issue has been settled out of Court and in lieu of the compromise entered between them, nothing survives for adjudication in the appeal.
3. The joint memo filed is recorded and in view of the same the appeal is dismissed, as settled out of Court. No costs.
4. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Judicature at Madras, rep. by its Registrar General Vs M.C.Subramaniam and others reported in 2021 (3) SCC 560, the registry is directed to refund the court fee paid in the appeal to the appellants. 20.12.2023 drl Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking 3/5
To 1.The Additional District and Fast Track Court No.III, Dharapuram, Erode District 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras. G.ARUL MURUGAN .,J.
drl 4/5
20.12.2023 5/5