This revision petition is directed against the dismissal of I.A.No.87/2003 in O.S.No.64/1970.
2.The dispute between the parties who belonged to two branches of M.D.T.Kumaraswami Mudaliar family has been compromised by virtue of compromise memo entered into between the parties. According to the compromise memo and the order passed pursuant to the memo dated 29.02.1996, the parties have agreed to share the amount lying in the Indian Bank, Rajapalayam as on date in the ratio of 60% : 40% subject to withdrawals already made by the respective parties. In the said circumstances, I.A.No.87/2003 has been filed by the revision petitioners who represents the branch entitled for 40% seeking disbursement of 40% money lying in the bank account. The Manager of the Estate has entertained his own doubt whether the compromise decree passed by the Supreme Court is applicable for the future profits also. The illusionary doubt entertained by the Manager has lead to interpleader suit and that has prevented the revision petitioners from getting their shares.
3.The Trial Court has also fallen prey to the said illusionary doubt and has held that there is no compromise arrived with regard to disbursement of future income and the petitioners claim 40% of the share as per the compromise decree. As the respondent developed doubt in his mind with regard to the disbursement of future income, he has filed interpleader suit before the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur. Whether the petitioners can redress their prayer before the said Court in the pending proceedings? This petition is hit by provision of Section 10 of CPC and before the disposal of the above suit, the Court cannot entertain the present petition.
4.As pointed out earlier, when the parties have reconciled between themselves and settled their share in the property in the ratio of 40% : 60% respectively, the Manager who is maintaining the estate has entertained a doubt and has filed a suit before the Sub Court as if there is a doubt in sharing the future profits of the estate.
5.Going through the compromise memo and the decree passed pursuant to the compromise memo in Civil Appeal No.4786/1984, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the income of the estate which is in the form of deposits lying in the Indian Bank, Rajapalayam, has to be apportioned by two groups in the ratio of 60% : 40%, there can be no separate adjudication for future income in respect of the said investment and there is no genuineness in the doubt entertained by the interpleader regarding share of the income accrued in the bank deposit.
6.Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order made in I.A.No.87 of 2003 in O.S.No.64 of 1970 dated 05.01.2004 is set aside. The revision petitioners are entitled to draw 40% of the money accrued in the said bank deposit. This order shall hold good for future income also and parties need not strain themselves by entertaining illusionary and frivolous doubts regarding sharing of income insofar as bank deposit is concerned which was subject matter to Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court and ended in a compromise. No order as to costs.
To The I Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli. .