Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners http://www.judis.nic.in would submit that in Para No.17 of the Judgment, it is stated that the plaintiffs themselves have admitted that they are willing and agreeable to have the portion and Schedule A and C instead of B & D as allotted and they are also agreeable to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- offered by the first respondent/10th defendant who is the subsequent purchaser towards owelty for extra 300 sq.ft., purely allotted to the defendants. This observation is factually incorrect, because the plaintiffs were allotted C and D schedule before the first appellate Court. The petitioners have not at all consented and agreed upon to the impugned judgment passed by the High Court modifying the final decree passed by he first appellate Court. The petitioners never agreed to the arrangement as recorded in the impugned judgment. Further, the judgment of the second appeal was based on the compromise and in pursuance of the compromise, the final decree passed by the first appellate Court has been modified. There can be a compromise with the 10th defendant in respect of 'B' schedule, but there cannot be a compromise in respect of the other schedules. The petitioners have been allotted the “A” portion in the final decree passed by the Trial Court and the same was confirmed by the first appellate Court. While passing the impugned judgment modifying the final decree and allotting “A” schedule to the plaintiffs, the learned http://www.judis.nic.in Judge recorded that the petitioners have given consent for this course. At the foremost, the petitioners or their counsel never gave any consent to give up their right and apart from that the alleged consent is wholly without any consideration. The portion marked as “A” by the Advocate Commissioner was allotted to the petitioner by the Trial Court while passing final decree. As against the same, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants have preferred any appeal and as such the order of the trial Court allotting 'A' portion to the petitioner have become final. Only the 10th defendant, namely, Venkatesan has preferred the second appeal and he was claiming equity in respect of the property purchased by him. The allotment in respect of 'A' schedule is confirmed and there was no modification in respect of the same. The modification is only in respect of “B” and “D” portion alone. Thus, the final decree passed by the trial Court has became final. If there is any compromise, then all the parties to the proceedings should have been consented. This Court modified the decree and judgment of the first appellate Court based on the consent given in S.A.No.714 of 2012 wherein the petitioners were not consenting the party. There cannot be any consent order between the other parties without the petitioner's consent. Hence, he sought for review the Judgment. http://www.judis.nic.in

4.The 11th defendant preferred separate review petition and put forth separate grounds and stated that in the second appeal, it was held that the plaintiffs are entitled to owelty apart from the allotment of “C” and “D” schedule. However, in the later portion of the judgment, it is stated that the plaintiffs were allotted “A” and “C” schedule instead of saying “C” and “D” schedule. It is apparent mistake on the face of the it. The second appeal judgment is stated to be based on the compromise and the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court was modified accordingly. There can be compromise between the first respondent/10th defendant in respect of the “B” schedule, but there cannot be any compromise in respect of the “A” Schedule which has been purchased by the review petitioner. The petitioner has purchased the portion of the suit property which has been demarcated as “A” by Advocate Commissioner, from the defendants, namely, Lakshmi, Neelamegam and Shankarabushanam and they have been allotted the said “A” schedule in the final decree passed by the trial Court and the same was confirmed by the first appellate Court. The petitioner would not have given consent to give up his right to work out the equity in his favour in respect of “A” schedule property without any consideration. The plaintiffs have not questioned the allotment of http://www.judis.nic.in “A” schedule in favour of the petitioner's vendor and the same has become final and accepted by the plaintiffs. In view of the admission, they cannot seek allotment of “A” schedule in their favour under the guise of arriving at compromise with the 10th defendant, who can given consent only in respect of “B” schedule property. Therefore, it is clear cut apparent error on the face of it. Hence, the review petition is sought to be entertain.

17. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that there are purchasers pending the lis and they have also sought for a direction form http://www.judis.nic.in this Court. But at the same time, now the appellants/plaintiffs themselves have admitted that they are willing and agreeable to have the portion under Schedule A and C instead of B and D as allotted and they are also agreeable to take the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- [Rupees ten lakhs only] offered by the first respondent/10th defendant, who is a subsequent purchaser, towards owelty for the 300 sq.ft. more allotted to the defendants, the allotment will be as follows and the decree passed by the trial Court in the final decree proceedings is modified to the following extent: 
                                    (iii)    The      first      respondent/tenth



http://www.judis.nic.in


                          defendant,           who         is            a        subsequent
                          purchaser/pendente            lite        is   entitled    to   "B"

measuring 1800 sq.ft., subject to the condition that as agreed by him, he shall pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- [Rupees ten lakhs only] to the appellants/plaintiffs towards owelty for the 300 sq.ft., extra allotted to them as above. Out of the said sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, the first respondent/tenth defendant has paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- [Rupees three lakhs only] drawn on Bank of India, Anna Nagar Branch in the name of E.Karnal, the 13th appellant herein vide Cheque No.000098 dated 13.11.2014 in the open Court and the remaining sum of Rs.7,00,000/- [Rupees seven lakhs only] shall be payable as follows: