Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Rani Arupudamary And Others vs Sathya And Others

Madras High Court|07 September, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 07.09.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN O.P. No.40 of 2017
1. Rani Arupudamary
2. Leema Rose @ Nirmala
3. Rega
4. Susila ... Petitioners Versus
1. Sathya
2. Ehilarasi
3. Deepa
4. Deepika
5. Santhosh Kumar ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act
XXXIX of 1925 read with Order XXV Rule 6 of O.S.Rules praying to grant a succession certificate to the petitioners with power to collect the debts and to receive the interest specified in the schedule 'B'.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Beulah John Selvaraj For Respondents : Mr.J.Winny O R D E R Very satisfactorily, the parties had appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and had entered into a Memorandum of Compromise. The mediator, Mr.D.Saravanan had given a report dated 11.08.2017 stating that the parties appeared along with their counsels and had settled the issues between them. Accordingly, the Memorandum of Compromise was prepared and it has been signed in each and every page by all the parties. The Memorandum of Compromise has also been signed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.
2. The terms of memorandum of compromise are recorded, which is as follows:
1. The petitioners have filed the O.P.No.40 of 2017 for the issuance of Succession certificate.
2. The petitioners and the respondents have come forward for compromise between them on the following certain terms and conditions:
a. The first petitioner is entitled to get the family pension and arrears of family pension. The respondents herein have no objection for the same.
b. The first respondent Santhosh Kumar entitled to get an appointment on compassionate ground in the Corporation of Chennai. The petitioners herein have no objection for the same.
c. The petitioners and respondents are entitled to get equal share in all other benefits like G.P.F, S.G.P.F, G.I.S Pay Commission arrears and gratuity from the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai.
3. The memo of compromise is recorded. The memo of compromise shall form part of the decree in O.P. No.40 of 2017. No costs.
07.09.2017 srn C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
srn O.P. No.40 of 2017 07.09.2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Rani Arupudamary And Others vs Sathya And Others

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
07 September, 2017
Judges
  • C V Karthikeyan