Dr. D. Vinayagamurthy And 6 Others v. C. Sureshkumar Reddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 29.01.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and O.A.No,729 of 2024 1.Dr.D.Vinayagamurthy 2.N.Snehalatha 3.Swaran Kripal Singh 4.K.Eapen 5.K.Murali 6.S.Thirunavukkarasu 7.M.D.Safitha .. Plaintiffs /versus/ C.Sureshkumar Reddy .. Defendant This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules r/w Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., prayed for (i) Declaring the Plaintiffs as the joint and absolute owners of the property more fully described in 'Schedule - C' ofthe 'Schedule of Property' hereunder in terms of their respective shares described in Para No. 6 of the Plaint, and consequently, grant a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents, men, assignees, servants or anybody acting through and/or on his behalf from interfering the Plaintiffs' Joint and 1/4

several possession and/or that ofthose claiming under them oft he said property in any manner whatsoever, and;

(b) Direct the defendant to pay the costs of the suit; For plaintiffs : Mr.M.Jagadheesan For Defendant : Ms.R.V.Gayathri for M/s.P.B.Ramaniyam Associates

JUDGMENT

The suit for declaration regarding title in respect of suit property was initially contested by the defendant. However, later the parties entered into a compromise and a Joint Compromise Memorandum was filed. The memorandum was signed by the power agent of the first plaintiff and the other plaintiffs personally, along with their counsel. The power agent of the defendant and his counsel also signed the Joint Compromise Memorandum.

2. The Joint Compromise Memorandum reads as below:- "1.The plaintiff has preferred this suit for declaration and injunction for the title of Schedule C property.

2/4

2.The Defendant initially was questioning the said title but after the present suit, he had verified the deeds and documents relating to the suit property and has convinced that the Plaintiff's absolute ownership and claim in lawful.

3.Hence, the Defendant conceded to the claim of the plaintiffs, and he has no objection to the suit to be decreed as prayed but without any costs.

4.The plaintiffs are also giving up their claim of costs and not insisting in the present suit."

3. In the light of the Compromise Memo, the suit is disposed of. A compromise decree is passed as prayed for. Consequently, the connected Original Application is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

29.01.2025 Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Index : yes/no rpl 3/4

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

rpl 29.01.2025 4/4