Madras High Court
Kamala Muthiah vs M.Ct.P.Chidambaram on 1 February, 2023
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
C.S.No.903 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
C.S.No.903 of 2016
Kamala Muthiah ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1.M.Ct.P.Chidambaram
2.Arti Ghai
@ Arti Meenakshi Muthiah
3.NandhiniValli ... Defendants
Prayer: The Civil Suit has been filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original
Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C praying to pass a judgement
and decree as against the defendants:-
(a) for effecting division of the suit Schedule "D" property into three shares
by metes and bounds and allocate Item-1 of Schedule "E" appended to the
plaint to the plaintiff and Item-2 of Schedule "E" appended to the plaint to
the defendants 2 and 3 jointly and Schedule "C" to the 1st defendant;
(b) for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to secure independent
and separate water and sewerage power supply and electricity connections
in respect for the portions so alloted to the defendants and the plaintiff by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.903 of 2016
making such deposit/s in their respective names;
(c) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their agents or
servants or anyone claiming under or through them from in any manner
interfering with the rights of the plaintiff to lease out the suit property, more
fully described in Schedule "B" hereunder;
(d) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their agents or
servants or men or anyone claiming under or through them from
encumbering or alienating or dealing with the suit property in favour of any
third party either by way of sale, lease, mortgage or in any other manner
whatsoever in respect of their undivided share in Schedule "B" property,
more fully described in Schedule "C" and Schedule "D";
(e) for a declaration that the plaintiff and the defendants are entitled for the
rights of pre-emption to purchase the shares of the defendants by virtue of
the clause contained in the partition deed dated 12.10.2005 and registered as
Document No.2820 of 2005 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Periamet and
Registration District of Chennai-Central and for costs.
For Plaintiff : Mr.R.Thiagarajan
JUDGMENT
The parties have amicably settled the matter before Mediation. Besides the suit, there are other litigations outstanding between the parties, some of the suits have been compromised and were initiating for settlement by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.903 of 2016 Hon'ble Supreme Court. This is one suit in the group of suits that have been settled between the parties. Based on the settlement arrived, the plaintiff withdraws the suit. A Memo dated 23.11.2022 to that effect is filed and the same is recorded.
3.The suit is therefore dismissed as withdrawn. The Registry is required to refund the Court fee as per law. No costs.
01.02.2023 Anu https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.903 of 2016 N.SESHASAYEE, J.
Anu C.S.No.903 of 2016 01.02.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis