Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

M.M.Ponnu Chetty & Palainammal vs Mrs.Susetha Badruswamy on 25 November, 2016

Author: R.Subramanian

Bench: R.Subramanian

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated  :   25.11.2016

Coram

The Honourable Mr.Justice R.SUBRAMANIAN

A.S.No.812  of 2010
and
M.P.No.1 of 2010
 
1.M.M.Ponnu Chetty & Palainammal
   Charities represented by M.Sivanandam,
   No.74, Thomas Street,
   Coimbatore.
2.M.Sivanandam
3.M.Dhanapal
4.S.Srinivasan
5.Jai Santhosh                                              ...     Appellants 

                                                                  	 		                                                                                                      
Vs.


1.Mrs.Susetha Badruswamy
2.Siva Badruswamy
3.S.Jayalakshmi
4.S.Vishnupriya                                             ...     Respondents                                                                      
                                                                            
	This Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and decree dated 04.01.2010 made in O.S.No.545 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.I/Full in Charge of Fast Track Court No.II) Coimbatore.
                                                               
	         For  Appellants          :   Mr.N.Damodaran 

		 For respondents        :   Mr.P.Valliappan for R1 and R2
                                                     Mr.P.Kandasamy for R3 and R4

				J U D G M E N T

The appeal relates to administration of first appellant's charities. The dispute essentially between the heirs of the founder of the charities regarding appointment of trustees. The parties entered into compromise and memorandum of compromise dated 05.08.2016 signed by the parties and responsible counsels has been produced. The respondents 1 and 2 were permanent residents at Washington and their signatures in the joint compromise memo has been duly attested by notary public in the state of Washington. Hence, I have no difficulty to accept the joint compromise memo. The joint compromise memo is recorded and there shall be an order of decree in terms of the joint compromise memo. The joint compromise memo shall form part of the decree. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.

25.11.2016 rrg Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To The Additional Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore.

Note:

Issue order copy on 09.12.2016 R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.
rrg A.S.No.812 of 2010 25.11.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in