High Court · 2025

AS(MD)No.105 of 2018 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.10.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMARAS(MD) NO. 105 of 20181.K.Alagu Subramanian2.A.Kalavathi Appellants/DefendantsVsK.Durairajan (Died),1.K.Varadharajan2.Dhanalakshmi3.Rajakumari4.K.Thiruvenkataperumal5.D.Senniammal6.Rani @ Seethaladevi7.Muruganandam8.Vivekanandan9.Arulanandan10.SanthiRespondents /PlaintiffsPrayer: This appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Decree and Judgement passed in O.S.No.83 of 2015 dated 24.01.2017 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.For Appellants : Mr.G.KarnanFor Respondents : Mr.M.P.Senthil1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS(MD)No.105 of 2018JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was made by Hon'ble C.V.KARTHIKEYAN., J.)The defendants in O.S.No.83 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court at Thanjavur are the appellants herein. 2.O.S.No.83 of 2015 had been filed seeking partition and separate possession of an undividable 1/6th share each to plaintiffs 2 to 5 and 1/6th share to the plaintiffs 6 and 8 to 11 of the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties have been listed in the schedule to the plaint. All the parties in the suit are the brothers and sisters. The suit after due process had come up for trial and by judgment dated 24.01.2017 the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge,Thanjavur, had passed a preliminary decree which is extracted here:01. That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed.02. That the plaintiffs 2 to 5 and the 1st defendant are hereby entitled to the partition of 1/6th share each in the suit properties.03. That the plaintiffs 8 to 11 are hereby entitled to partition of 1/6th share jointly belonging to the deceased 1st plaintiff's share in the suit properties.04. That the plaintiffs 6 & 7 and the 2nd defendant are hereby not entitled to any share in the suit properties; and to that effect preliminary decree is passed;2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS(MD)No.105 of 201805. That it is hereby declared that the plaintiffs are at liberty to initiate final decree proceedings to work out their shares in pursuance of preliminary decree:06. That there be no order as to costs''3. Challenging the same, the present first appeal has been filed by the defendants. Pending appeal, the fifth respondent namely, D.Senniammal had unfortunately passed away. Her legal representatives are already on record as the respondents 7 to 10. A memo in this regard has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellants. Before issuing the order copy, the Registry may record the death of the fifth respondent and further record that the respondents 7 to 10 are the legal heirs of the deceased fifth respondent.4. During the course of hearing, we have noticed that the parties had taken a prudent decision to settle the issues among themselves. In this regard, we must appreciate the learned counsels for the appellants and the respondents for taking efforts in bringing conciliation among the parties. 5. In this connection, a joint compromise memo had been presented before us and signed by each of the appellants and each of the respondents. The deceased fifth respondent was represented by her legal representatives.3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS(MD)No.105 of 20186. We have called each one of the two appellants and all the respondents and they are present in the court and they confirmed about the terms of the compromise memo. The compromise memo is written both in English and Tamil and the parties have signed in both English and Tamil versions. It had also been signed by the learned counsels on 27.10.2025. The terms of the compromise memo filed in this appeal are as follows:''The appellants and the respondents are brother and sister and legal heirs. The Respondents filed suit in O.S.No. 83 of 2015 before the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Thanjavur for the relief of partition claiming 1/6th share in suit said property. Suit was decreed on 24.01.2017 challenging the same the above said appeal has been filed before this Hon'ble Court by the appellant. 2. While pending the appeal the parties are comprised between them to effect that the Suit schedule property in T.S.No. 1503 and 1505 B to the extent of 6195 Sq ft, which is shown as item no. 1 to 4 in the plaint it is agreed by all the parties that the above said extent of 6195 sq. ft is equally divided to the respective parties to the extent 1032 sq. ft. each namely 1. Durairajan, 2. Varadharajan, 3.Dhanalskshmi, 4.Rajkumar, 5. Thiruvengadaperumal, 6.Alagu Subramanian. 3. The suit schedule property shown as 5th item is not dividable therefore it is agreed that the property neither sold nor railway acquired land, the money received party same has to be equally divided among 6 persons. 4. The Durairajan and Alagu Subramanian are residing separately 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS(MD)No.105 of 2018property in a small house in the above said suit schedule property. Therefore it is agreed it is allotted share 1032 sq. ft. in the same house area along with house.5. The above said agreement are executed parties and signed in the tamil version is filed along with this compromise memo.6. As per the compromise written version between the parties and signed all the parties, all the parties agree to measure and fix the 4 boundaries as per the measurement each person is entitled to patta and revenue records.7. The parties have also written down the compromise memo in Tamil and the same is reproduced below:''jQ;rht{h; lt[d; thh;L vz; 6 gpshf; vz; 32 thdf;fhuj; bjUtpy; mike;jpUf;Fk; tPl;L kidahdJ 6195 rJu moapy; cs;s brhj;ij bkhj;jk; MW(6) ghfkhf gphpg;gjw;fhd KG tpguk;.1.nkw;go Twpa brhj;jpd; bjd;ghfj;jpy; mike;Js;s xl;L tPL kw;Wk; bfhs;is Mfpa ,uz;ila[k; rkkhf gphpf;fg;gl;L> mjpy; cs;s tPL (xl;L fl;olk;) cs;s Kd;ghfk; (1032) rJuo jpU.fp.Jiuuh$d; (nyl;) mth;fs; kw;Wk; mth;fs; thhpR> jpU.o.KUfhde;jk; o.tptnfhdjk;> o.mUshde;jk;> jpUkjp. rhe;jp mth;fSf;F xJf;fg;gLfpwJ.,jpy; kPjp cs;s fl;olk; my;yhj Kid gpd;ghfk; (1032) rJuo jpU.fp.jpUntq;flk; mth;fSf;F xJf;fg;gLfpwJ.2.nkw;go Twpa brhj;jpd; tlghfj;jpy; mike;Js;s xl;L tPL> kw;Wk; bfhs;is Mfpa ,uz;ila[k; rkkhf gphpf;fg;gl;L> mjpy; cs;s tPL (xl;L fl;olk;) cs;s Kd;ghfk; (1032) rJuo jpU.fp.mHFRg;gpukzpad; mth;fSf;F xJf;fg;gLfpwJ.5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS(MD)No.105 of 2018,jpy; kPjp cs;s fl;olk; my;yhj kidapd; ghfk; (1032) rJuo jpU.fp.tujuh$d; mth;fSf;F xJf;fg;gLfpwJ.nkw;go Twpa ,Uth;> jpU.fp>tujuh$d;> jpU.ntq;flk; Mfpa ,Uthpd; kidf;f ghij gpd;g[wnk xJf;fg;gLfpwJ.nkw;Twpa brhj;jpd; fpHf;F nehf;fpa ghfj;jpy; cs;s xl;L fl;olk; cs;s tPL> fhyp kid Mfpa ,uz;ila[k; rkkhf 1032> kw;Wk; 1032 rJuo vd jpUkjp.jdbyl;Rkp kw;Wk; jpUkjp uh$Fkhhp Mfpa ,UtUf;Fk; xJf;fg;gLfpwJ.nkYk; ,th;fSf;F brhe;jkhd kid jQ;rht{h; khtl;lk; Fk;gnfhzk; 6tJ thh;L tlf;F ts;Stj; bjUtpy; cs;s tPL 1217 & 1218 vd;fpw rh;nt vz;zpy; cs;s tPL ,uapy;nt eph;thfj;jhy; Mf;fpukpg;g[ nkw;bfhs;sg;gLtjhf te;j bra;jp mog;gilapy;> mjid ,uapy;nt eph;thfk; bray;gLj;Jk; nghJ mjw;fhd bjhifia tHq;Fk;nghJ mjid nkw;Twpa MW(6) egh;fSf;Fk; rkkhf gphpj;J gq;fspf;fg;gl ntz;Lk; vd;gij xg;g[f;bfhs;fpnwhk;''7. A perusal of the compromise memo shows that the parties had come to an understanding as to how the properties should be divided. It has been stated that the item Nos. 1 to 4, which are situated at S.Nos. 1503, 1505 measuring 6195 sq. ft, should be equally divided among the respective parties to an extent of 1032 sq. ft each. This would indicate the legal heirs of K.Durairajan and each one of the parties, namely, Durairajan, Varadharajan, Dhanalakshmi, Rajakumari, K.Thiruvenkataperumal and K.Alagu Subramanaian. We are conscious that K.Durairajan had died pending the suit and his shares devolved upon his legal heirs. 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS(MD)No.105 of 20188. The property shown as 5th item is not divisible. It is stated that the indivisible 5th property may be acquired by Railway Department and if it is done, the compensation amount would be equally divided among the individuals/their legal representatives. 9. In view of the fact that the parties had agreed and fixed the four boundaries and that each one of them would apply for patta and for mutation of revenue records in their names, we are of the considered opinion that final decree in terms of compromise memo can be passed. The parties need not file an final decree application. Accordingly, final decree is passed in the suit in O.S.No.83 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thanjavur. A copy of final decree maybe forwarded to the District Court for recording the same in the suit register. The joint compromise memo both in English and Tamil shall form part of the final decree. 10. This appeal suit is decreed accordingly in terms of compromise memo dated 27.10.2025. No order as to costs. (C.V.K., J.) (R.V., J) 27.10.2025CM7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS(MD)No.105 of 2018To,1. II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS(MD)No.105 of 2018C.V.KARTHIKEYAN., J.and R.VIJAYAKUMAR., J.CMAS(MD) NO. 105 of 201827.10.20259/9