Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Compromise memorandum in K. Rama Murthy (Died) By Lr And Ors. vs A. Ramaswamy (Died) By Lrs. And Ors. on 11 September, 2007Matching Fragments
17. It is also specifically averred that the deceased plaintiff No. 1 -K. Rama Murthy and his son K. Sitaraman, who is arrayed as plaintiff No. 2, have received and encashed four cheques, each dated 1-3-1990, for a total value of Rs. 7-70 lakhs. It is further stated that the defendants filed an application LA. No. 1271 of 1991 under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking reference of the matter to arbitration before the trial Court and the same is pending.
18. During the pendency of the said proceedings before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the second plaintiff viz., K. Sitaraman, who is the son of the deceased plaintiff No. l-AT. Rama Murthy, has chosen to file suit O.S. No. 5919 of 2000 on the file of X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, claiming to be a partner in the Firm M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Lodge and sought for a decree of injunction preventing the defendants to participate and share the properties in the said business. The said suit was ended in compromise and a Memorandum of Compromise, dated 5.9.2003, under Ex.B-63 was filed, wherein it was accepted that in full and final settlement of their claim, encashed the cheques, dated 1.3.1990, for a total sum of Rs. 7-70 lakhs, that in the said Memorandum of Compromise, it was categorically set out that a total sum of Rs. 12-00 lakhs and interest at 6 per cent per annum was paid by defendants 1 to 5 and received the consideration due to him on his own behalf and as the legal heir of his father i.e., plaintiff No. l (K. Rama Murthy) and that contrary to the Memorandum of Compromise under Ex.B-63 specifically entered into between the parties in suit O.S. No. 5919 of 2000, the plaintiffs choose to file the present suit O.S. No. 471 of 1990 on 23.4.1990 for dissolution of Firm and rendition of accounts, stating that the cheques were encashed under protest and without prejudice to their rights.
100. It is also clear that there is a special mention about the pendency of the suit O.S. No. 471 of 1990 in Ex.B-63 Memorandum of Compromise and both the parties have agreed that the suit proceedings in O.S. No. 471 of 1990 shall be withdrawn. So many other terms and conditions specified under Annexures-I to IX have also been referred to in Ex.B-63.
101. For better appreciation of the conduct and the intention of the plaintiffs in the context of essentiality of time and readiness and willingness, we feel it necessary to extract the relevant excerpts of Ex.B-63 Memorandum of Compromise.
106. Perhaps, the aspect of filing of the suit O.S. No. 5919 of 2000 and the resultant closure of the said suit in terms of Memorandum of Compromise under Ex.B-63 was not brought to the notice of the apex Court. Even otherwise, the matter had been remitted to the trial Court. Merely because this aspect has not been seriously contested by either of the party, still the effect of Ex.B-64 judgment passed in suit O.S. No. 5919 of 2000 in terms of the Memorandum of Compromise cannot totally be obliterated.
109. It is not by mere assumptions or presumptions from the facts, but essentially by the very nature and conditions incorporated in the Memorandum of Compromise under Ex.B-63, which resulted in passing of the judgment in suit O.S. No. 5919 of 2000 in terms of the said Memorandum of Compromise under Ex.B-64 itself is a clear indication that all the obligations of the plaintiffs were performed by the defendants, as was originally agreed.
110. Further, inspite of specific elaborate mentioning of Ex.B-63 Memorandum of Compromise in the written statement/counterclaim, no attempt of effective repudiation of the same was made by the plaintiffs in the pleadings as contemplated under Rule 6-A(3) of Order VIII of CPC.