IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.07.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN O.S.A.NOS.272 of 2000, 14 and 105 of 2002 AND C.M.A.NO.109 OF 2004 AND C.R.P.PD.NO.1529 OF 2003 AND C.M.P.NO.10956 OF 2003 O.S.A.No.272 of 2000: Minor S.Mruthulangi rep. by her mother and natural Guardian Geetha Srinivasaraghavan .. Appellant Vs. 1.D.Devanathan. 2.D.Srinivasaraghavan 3.R.Swaminathan .. Respondents O.S.A.NO.14 OF 2002: 1.D.Devanathan 2.D.Srinivasaraghavan .. Appellants Vs. 1.Ms.Mridulangi 2.R.Swaminathan .. Respondents O.S.A.NO.105 OF 2002: R.Swaminathan .. Appellant Vs. 1.Geetha Srinivasaraghavan 2.Mridulangi 3.D.Devanathan 4.D.Srinivasaraghavan .. Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C.M.A.(NPD) NO.109 OF 2004: Geetha .. Appellant Vs. D.Srinivasaraghavan .. Respondent C.R.P.(PD) NO.1529 OF 2003: Geetha Srinivasaraghavan .. Petitioner Vs. Srinivasaraghavan .. Respondent O.S.A.No.272 of 2000 has been preferred under Order 36 Rule 1 of O.S. Rules against the order of the learned Single Judge made in C.S.No.1609 of 1994, dated 18.04.2000. O.S.A.No.14 of 2002 has been preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge made in C.S.No.1609 of 1994, dated 18.04.2000. O.S.A.No.105 of 2002 has been preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S. Rules against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge made in C.S.No.338 of 1997, dated 18.04.2000. C.M.A.NO.109 of 2004 has been preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the judgment and decree of the II Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai made in F.C.O.P.No.1145 of 1993, dated 05.09.2003. C.R.P.No.1529 of 2003 has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order, dated 22.07.2003 made in I.A.No.1173 of 2003 in FCOP No.1145 of 1993 on the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.V.Raghavachari in OSA No.272/2000 for 1st respondent in OSA No.14/2002 for RR1 and 2 in OSA No.105/2002 for appellant in CMA No.109/2004 for petitioner in CRP No.1529/2003 For Respondents: Mr.T.V.Ramanujan, SC for M/s.Mc Gan Law Firm for RR1 and 2 in OSA No.272/2000 for appellants in OSA No.14/2002 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, SC for M/s.Chitra Sampath for RR3 and 4 in OSA No.105/2002. Mr.S.Sathish Rajan for appellant in OSA No.105/2002 for R3 in OSA No.272/2000 for R2 in OSA No.14/2002 for respondents in CMA No.109/2004 and in CRP No.1529/2003 COMMON JUDGMENT (The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) When the arguments are at part heard stage, there was an attempt made to compromise the matter. Accordingly, the parties and the respective counsel were at it and also compromised the matter. This day, they have filed a joint memorandum of compromise entered into between the parties. All the parties are present in Court and they have also signed in the memorandum of compromise in all pages. The respective claims are decreed as found in the compromise memo. 2.Further, insofar as the delivery of possession of 'B' schedule property, which is the subject matter in C.S.No.1609 of 1994 and which is correspondingly the subject matter of appeal in O.S.A.No.14 of 2002, it has been agreed by the parties that handing over of possession of "B" schedule property by the plaintiff to the third defendant and also making payment, as agreed by the parties, have got to be done simultaneously. Both the counsel would submit that time may be fixed by the Court for handing over the possession and also for making payment. 3.Considering the facts and circumstances attendant, the Court is of the considered opinion that four months time is granted to both the parties for delivery of possession and also for making payment by respective parties, which has to be taken place before the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Accordingly, it is ordered and these original side appeals are disposed of. The compromise entered into and signed by the parties shall form part of the order passed by this court. 4.The Registry is directed to hand over the title deeds along with the deposit vouchers to the counsel for the second respondent, who in turn shall retain the same. After the handing over of possession and also making cash payment, as referred to in the compromise, so far as the title deeds are concerned, they should be handed over to the third defendant and so far as the deposit vouchers are concerned, they should be given to the second defendant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.As per the compromise, the C.M.A. is also disposed of. The Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the appellant in C.M.A., whereby an interim order passed in divorce proceedings was challenged. Now, the C.M.A. along with the other appeals was taken up and was given disposal, affirming the decree of divorce given by the Family Court. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is also disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. vvk To The Sub Assistant Registrar (Original side) High Court, Madras. (for refering para NO.4) 1 cc to Mr.V. Ragavachari, Advocate, SR. 39754 1 cc to MRs. Chitra Sampath, Advocate, SR. 39614 12 ccs to Mr. Satish Rajan, Advocate, SR. 39730, 39728, 39729, 39731 O.S.A.NOS.272 of 2000, 14 and 105 of 2002 AND C.M.A.NO.109 OF 2004 AND C.R.P.PD.NO.1529 OF 2003 KA (CO) kk 23/12 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/