Paulnesam vs Nesamma
2021 Latest Caselaw 21807 Mad

                                                       1               S.A.(MD)NO.605 OF 2006

                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED: 01.11.2021

                                                     CORAM

                       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                      S.A.(MD)No.605 of 2006 and
                           M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2006 and C.M.P.(MD)No.9125 of 2021


                     1. Paulnesam
                     2. Sundaravadivu
                     3. Puspam
                     4. Santhakumari(Died)
                     5. Gunaseelan
                     6. Vijayarani
                     7. Latharani
                     8. Premarani
                     9. Vimalarani
                     10.Kochumani                  ... Defendants 3,4 and 6 to 13 /
                                                       Appellants 2 to 11 in A.S.No.67 of
                                                       1999 and respondents 2 to 11 in
                                                       A.S.No.68 of 1999 / Appellants
                     11.Thankaraj
                     12.Viji
                     13.Sujith Thankaraj
                     14.Sujitha Thankaraj
                        (Appellants 11 to 14 were brought on record as legal heirs of the
                     deceased 4th appellant vide Order dated 18.02.2020 made in C.M.P.
                     (MD)No.268 of 2020)
                                                              ... Appellants 11 to 14

                                                        Vs.


                     1. Nesamma
                     2. Kala
                     3. Suseela               ... Plaintiffs 1 to 3 / Respondents 1 to 3
                                                    in A.S.No.67 of 1999 and appellants
                                                    1 to 3 in A.S.No.68 of 1999 /
                                                    Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/5
                                                                2                S.A.(MD)NO.605 OF 2006




                                   Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of
                     C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.03.2005 of
                     the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, made in A.S.
                     No.67 of 1999 and A.S.No.68 of 1999 on his file, modifying the
                     Judgment and Decree dated 20.07.1999 on the file of the
                     learned I Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram made
                     in O.S.No.842 of 1988.


                                   For Appellants         : Mr.K.N.Thampi


                                   For R-1 to R-3         : Mr.P.Thiyagarajan


                                                            ***


                                                     JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. This second appeal arises out of a suit for

declaration and partition. The defendants in O.S.No.842 of

1988 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif,

Kuzhithurai, are the appellants herein. While the relief of

declaration had been negatived, preliminary decree was in

favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed A.S.No.68 of 1999

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3 S.A.(MD)NO.605 OF 2006

on the file of the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai. The defendants filed

A.S.No.67 of 1999 on the file of the very same Court. The

appeal filed by the appellants in A.S.No.67 of 1999 was

dismissed, while the appeal filed by the plaintiffs in A.S.No.68

of 1999 was partly allowed and some share granted to the

plaintiffs was enhanced. Aggrieved by the same, this second

appeal came to be filed.

3. During the pendency of the second appeal, the

parties arrived at an amicable settlement. They have also

signed a memo of compromise and filed C.M.P.(MD)No.9125

of 2021 for recording the same and passing a decree in terms

thereof. The appellants herein as well as the respondents

herein appeared before this Court through video

conferencing. Advocate Thiru.Dharmaraj (158/1978) identified

the appellants. Advocate Thiru.M.Paulraj (1457/1995)

identified the respondents herein. All the parties in unison

state that the matter has been amicably resolved and that this

Court can accept the compromise.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4 S.A.(MD)NO.605 OF 2006

4. I am satisfied that the compromise memo has been

signed by all the parties and also the respective counsel. I am

fully satisfied that the compromise has been duly entered into.

Therefore, C.M.P.(MD)No.9125 of 2021 is allowed. The

judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are

modified and this second appeal is disposed of in terms of the

memo of compromise dated 29.10.2021. The sketch has also

been enclosed in the memo of compromise. The memo of

compromise and along with the sketch shall form part of the

decree. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petition is closed.

                                                                              01.11.2021

                     Index    : Yes / No
                     Internet : Yes/ No
                     PMU

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5 S.A.(MD)NO.605 OF 2006

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

PMU

To:

1. The Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai.

2. The I Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.

3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

S.A.(MD)No.605 of 2006

01.11.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis