J.SUJATHA Vs. M.SATHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision has been filed at the instance of the 5th defendant, challenging the order of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, recording joint compromise memo entered into between the 2nd plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4.

(2.) I have heard Mr. K. V. Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr. A. K. Raghavulu, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/ 2nd plaintiff and Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.V. Babu, would state that the suit has been filed for partition and pending the suit, the 1st plaintiff died and thereafter, the 2nd plaintiff has proceeded to enter into a compromise with defendants 1 to 4 alone. He would refer to the joint memo of compromise that has been entered into between the parties on 25/4/2019 and state that in terms of Clause c, when the parties have agreed that in respect of item 2 of the suit schedule property, the claims of the other parties to the suit would be proceeded against, at the time of trial and shall be decided independently, there cannot be a partial partition, which is not permissible in law. He would further contend that in the event of the 2nd plaintiff succeeding in the suit in respect of item 2, then the defendants 1 to 4 would also become entitled to a right or share in the said property and the compromise is therefore unworkable and the trial judge ought not to have proceeded to record the said joint memo of compromise.