Madras High Court
T.Pakiayalakshmi vs T. Chellam on 13 March, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
S.A.(MD).No.85 of 2007
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
S.A.(MD).No.85 of 2007
1. T.Pakiayalakshmi
2. T.Narayana Perumal
3. T.Perumal
4. T.Arunachala Perumal
5. T.Vaikunda Lakshmi : Appellants
Vs.
1. T. Chellam
2. T.Kumaresan
3. T.Rethina Pandiyan
4. R.Anna Pushpam
5. S.Periakrishnanatha
6. C. Velliah
7. C.Kasithangam
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 01:02:10 pm )
S.A.(MD).No.85 of 2007
8. C.Kamaraj
9. C.Murugesan
10. L.Anbumalai
: Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. praying to prefer the
Memorandum of Grounds S.A. against the Judgment and decree of the
Learned II Additional Sub Judge, Nagercoil dated 12.10.2006 in A.S.No.
16 of 2003 confirming the Judgment and decree of the Learned II
Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil dated 21.03.2002 in O.S.No.634 of
1995.
For Appellants : Mr. R.Appavu Rethinam
For Respondents : Ms.Jessi Jeeva Priya for R5
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.16 of 2003, dated 12.10.2006, on the file of the II Additional Sub-Court, Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 634 of 1995, dated 21.03.2002 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil.
2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 01:02:10 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.85 of 2007
2. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed the suit seeking for the relief of partition and for separate possession of 5/8th share in the suit properties. During the pendency of the suit, the counsel representing the plaintiffs made an endorsement to the effect that the parties have reached a settlement outside court. Recording the same, the suit was closed.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in A.S. No. 16 of 2003, on the ground that such an endorsement was made by the counsel without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and that there was no compromise between the parties and hence the judgment and decree passed by the trial court requires interference.
4. The lower appellate court, by judgment and decree dated 12.10.2006, rendered a finding that once the counsel representing the plaintiffs has made an endorsement before the court based on the instructions received from the client, the client cannot turn around thereafter and try to wriggle out of such instructions given to the counsel 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 01:02:10 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.85 of 2007 and contest the case on merits. Accordingly, the appellate court, by the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2006, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been filed before this Court.
5. This Court merely ordered notice in the second appeal and did not frame any substantial question of law.
6. After service of notice, the second appeal was listed for final hearing.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case involves two substantial questions of law and they are that the lower appellate court did not frame the points for consideration, as mandated under Order XLI Rule 31 of “the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908” (in short “CPC”) and the endorsement made by the counsel based on which the suit was closed is not in accordance with Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC.
8. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 01:02:10 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.85 of 2007
9. In the considered view of this Court, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was closed based on the endorsement made by the counsel appearing for the plaintiffs to the effect that the parties have settled the matter amicably outside court. If according to the plaintiffs they did not give any such instruction to the counsel, they should have gone before the trial court and taken such a stand so that the trial court will have an opportunity to hear and to take a decision. Curiously, the plaintiffs have chosen to file an appeal before the lower appellate court. There is nothing much the lower appellate court can do in a case of this nature, since there was nothing to be considered on merits. Hence, framing points for consideration will become an academic exercise without any purpose. Apart from that, the principles under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC will not apply to the facts of the present case, since the endorsement was made by the advocate based on the instructions received from the plaintiffs.
10. An advocate is a representative of the client and hence, whenever a representation is made by the advocate before the court on behalf of the client, the same has to be acted upon by the court and the 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 01:02:10 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.85 of 2007 court need not suspect an advocate and call the party to satisfy itself. This is not a case where the compromise between the parties was reduced to writing and it was presented before the court. This is a case where the counsel for the plaintiffs was informed that the matter has been settled out of court and the same was acted upon and an endorsement was made to that effect. As stated supra, if the plaintiffs have not questioned the same before the trial court, there is no use in agitating the case before the appellate court and before this Court by way of the second appeal.
11. In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not find any substantial questions of law involved in the present second appeal. There is no ground to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that liberty must be granted to the appellants to file a fresh suit. If, according to the appellants, they have a subsisting claim for a share in the property, it is left open to them to work out their remedy in the manner known to law, if so advised.
6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 01:02:10 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.85 of 2007
13. In the result, this Second Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
13.03.2026
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
PKN
To
1. The II Additional Sub Judge, Nagercoil.
2. The II Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil
3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 01:02:10 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.85 of 2007 N.ANAND VENKATESH, J PKN Judgment made in S.A.(MD).No.85 of 2007 Dated:13.03.2026 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 01:02:10 pm )