Sunderalingam etc. Vs. K. Manaithunainatha Desikar & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2158 of 1970
Petitioner: Sunderalingam etc.
Respondent: K. Manaithunainatha Desikar & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2158 of 1970
Judges: A.P.SEN & B.C.RAY,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 21, 1987
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Compromise petition – Right of management of trust property – Some property in Sri Lanka and some in India – Respondents- Sri Lankan were not able to come to India and affirm the compromise – Decree in terms of compromise allowed, subject to objections.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. We find no justification for adjourning the case any further. By a joint application the appellant V. Sunderalingam and the contesting respondent No.1 K. Manaithunainatha have stated that they have entered into a compromise and the Court may pass a decree in terms thereof. The dispute is about the right of management of trust property. Some of the property is in Sri Lanka and some in India. During the course of the hearing of the appeal on May 1, 1984, it was pointed out that the compromise petition cannot be filed till respondents nos. 2 and 3, who are residents of Jaffna in Sri Lanka, affirm the same. Apparently respondents nos. 2 and 3 support the appellant-plaintiff. With a view to complete the legal process, the appeal was adjourned to the first week of August 1984. Since then innumerable adjournments have been taken by learned counsel appearing for respondents nos. 2 and 3 of the ground that due to the disturbed situation in Jaffna, here clients were unable to come to India to attend the hearing.
2. We find no reason to adjourn the hearing any further. Let a decree be drawn in terms of the compromise, subject to objections.
1. We find no justification for adjourning the case any further. By a joint application the appellant V. Sunderalingam and the contesting respondent No.1 K. Manaithunainatha have stated that they have entered into a compromise and the Court may pass a decree in terms thereof. The dispute is about the right of management of trust property. Some of the property is in Sri Lanka and some in India. During the course of the hearing of the appeal on May 1, 1984, it was pointed out that the compromise petition cannot be filed till respondents nos. 2 and 3, who are residents of Jaffna in Sri Lanka, affirm the same. Apparently respondents nos. 2 and 3 support the appellant-plaintiff. With a view to complete the legal process, the appeal was adjourned to the first week of August 1984. Since then innumerable adjournments have been taken by learned counsel appearing for respondents nos. 2 and 3 of the ground that due to the disturbed situation in Jaffna, here clients were unable to come to India to attend the hearing.
2. We find no reason to adjourn the hearing any further. Let a decree be drawn in terms of the compromise, subject to objections.
