Saroja Vs. Gunasekaran and Others

Saroja vs Gunasekaran and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 13, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/934265

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/934265
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: G. Rajasuria
Decided On: Aug 13, 2012
Case Number: A.S. NO. 960 OF 2005 & C.M.P. NOS. 18521 OF 2005 & 614 OF 2012
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Saroja

Advocate For the Appellant: V. Nicholas, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 and R4 - P.D. Audikesavalu, R3 and R7 -C. Sanjai Babu, R6 - S.P. Yuvan Kumar, R2-died, Advocates.

Respondent

Gunasekaran and Others

Excerpt

.....the deputy registrar to depose about the memo of compromise which they filed. 2. accordingly the deputy registrar(judicial) returned the file after recording the sworn statements of those persons after getting marked the compromise memo as ex.p1. 3. the learned counsel for r4-muniyammal endorses no objection and on behalf of her a separate memo was filed claiming no share in the suit property and it is also recorded and the learned advocate affirms the same before me. 4. perused the statements of the parties as well as the joint memo, including the map appended to it, which is marked as ex.p1 and i could see no reason not to record the compromise. they consciously in order to have peaceful co-existence agreed for such a compromise. accordingly, the said compromise is recorded. 5. the parties as well as their respective advocates in unison would agree to it that in the map appended to the joint memo of compromise, the respective shares are found detailed by metes and bounds and as such, there is no necessity for any separate final decree application to be filed and a final decree to be passed and this court could straight away pass a final decree. 6. in view of the above compromise, the preliminary decree passed by the lower court shall stand set aside and it shall be replaced by a final decree, which shall contain the joint memo of compromise as well as the map appended to it as part and parcel of the compromise decree. 7. accordingly, this appeal is disposed of. no costs. consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Appeal filed as against the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2005 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Court No.I), Chengalpattu in O.S.No.554 of 2004.)

JUDGMENT

1. Saroja-the appellant, Gunasekaran -the first respondent herein, Seenivasan- the third respondent, Lakshmi Kanthammal- the fifth respondent, Krishnaveni-the sixth respondent and Shanthi-the seventh respondent along with their respective advocates have appeared before this Court during morning hours and they were directed to appear before the Deputy Registrar to depose about the memo of compromise which they filed.

2. Accordingly the Deputy Registrar(Judicial) returned the file after recording the sworn statements of those persons after getting marked the compromise memo as Ex.P1.

3. The learned counsel for R4-Muniyammal endorses no objection and on behalf of her a separate memo was filed claiming no share in the suit property and it is also recorded and the learned advocate affirms the same before me.

4. Perused the statements of the parties as well as the joint memo, including the map appended to it, which is marked as Ex.P1 and I could see no reason not to record the compromise. They consciously in order to have peaceful co-existence agreed for such a compromise. Accordingly, the said compromise is recorded.

5. The parties as well as their respective advocates in unison would agree to it that in the map appended to the joint memo of compromise, the respective shares are found detailed by metes and bounds and as such, there is no necessity for any separate final decree application to be filed and a final decree to be passed and this court could straight away pass a final decree.

6. In view of the above compromise, the preliminary decree passed by the lower court shall stand set aside and it shall be replaced by a final decree, which shall contain the joint memo of compromise as well as the map appended to it as part and parcel of the compromise decree.

7. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2012 Same Parties Saroja vs Gunasekaran and Others Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge G. Rajasuria