J. MUTHURAJAN & ANR. Vs. S. VAIKUNDARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Orchestrating the dissolution of a business empire built by the father, the children resorted to arbitration, conciliation and litigation to go their independent ways with their share of the pie, as is common in families with multiplying numbers and proliferating assets. Two out of the four siblings found an amicable partition through arbitration. The two remaining, along with their families are grappling with each other for an equitable partition of the huge assets and the vast properties amassed over the years. The respective families are represented by their eldest, the brothers, Vaikundarajan and Jegatheesan who along with their immediate kin stakes equal claim to the assets, left to their joint share in the earlier arbitration and those accumulated thereafter. Vaikundarajan group relies on a Conciliation Award, strongly refuted by the Jegatheesan group, who took recourse first to arbitration, which failed and then to litigation. Assailed herein is a judgment which confirmed the rejection of a suit filed by the Jegatheesan group, allowing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908[For brevity, 'The CPC']. We refer to the parties by their names and the documents from Civil Appeal @SLP (C) No.16254 of 2025.

(3.) Differences simmering for some time, surfaced in the year 2018 and Vaikundarajan group asserts that on a request made by Jegatheesan, their half-brother Ganesan, acted as a Conciliator to bring about a settlement by a fair partition. A Partition Deed termed Kaithadi Baga Pirivinai Pathiram[For brevity, 'the KBPP'] was drawn up with the entire assets included in two Schedules. The division, alleged to be as per custom, was made by Jegatheesan with Vaikundarajan at the first instance choosing Schedule 'C' and the remaining Schedule 'A' left to Jegatheesan. The parties agreed by putting their signatures on the KBPP, the translated copy of which is produced as Annexure P-1 dtd. 31/12/2018.