Madras High Court
Amutha ... 1St Defendant / vs Kaliraj on 1 November, 2021
1 S.A.(MD)NO.863 OF 2007
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)No.863 of 2007 and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007 & C.M.P.(MD)No.9518 of 2016
Amutha ... 1st Defendant / Appellant /
Appellant
Vs.
1. Kaliraj
through its Power Agent,
Solaiappan ... Plaintiff / 1st Respondent /
1st Respondent
2. Chandrasekar ... 2nd Defendant / 2nd Respondent /
2nd Respondent
3. P.Ramalakshmi
(R-3 is impleaded vide Order dated 28.10.2021
in C.M.P.(MD)No.8915 of 2021)
... 3rd Respondent
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of
C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.69
of 2006 dated 20.02.2007 on the file of the Sub Court,
Kovilpatti, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in
O.S.No.320 of 2004 dated 21.09.2006 on the file of the District
Munsif, Kovilpatti.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
2 S.A.(MD)NO.863 OF 2007
For Appellant : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram,
for Mr.D.Nallathambi
For R-1 : Mr.M.S.Balasubramania Iyer
For R-3 : Mr.S.Vashik Ali
For R-2 : Mr.Chandrasekar,
appeared in person.
***
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. This second appeal arises out of a suit for
declaration and mandatory injunction. The first respondent
herein filed O.S.No.320 of 2004 on the file of the District
Munsif, Kovilpatti.
3. The suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the
appellant herein filed A.S.No.69 of 2006 on the file of the Sub
Court, Kovilpatti. The first appeal was dismissed vide
judgment and decree dated 20.02.2007. Challenging the
same, this second appeal came to be filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 S.A.(MD)NO.863 OF 2007
4. During the pendency of the suit, the second
defendant sold his share in the suit property in favour of the
third defendant, namely, Ramalakshmi. Since the second
respondent / second defendant Chandra Sekar has no interest
in the present proceeding, memo has been filed by the
appellant excluding him. The said memo dated 01.11.2021 is
taken on record and the second defendant is exonerated from
the array of parties. In the meanwhile, the parties have
entered into a settlement. They have also filed Joint
Compromise Memo dated 03.10.2021. It is enclosed by a
Sketch also. The appellant Amutha is present before me and
she has been duly identified by her counsel. The power agent
of the plaintiff is no more and the original plaintiff Kaliraj is
present before this Court. He has been duly identified by his
counsel. The third respondent Ramalakshmi appeared before
this Court through video conferencing and she has been duly
identified by her counsel. The memo of compromise has been
signed by the parties and also by their respective counsel.
5. I am satisfied that the compromise has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 S.A.(MD)NO.863 OF 2007
voluntarily entered into. Therefore the judgment and decree
passed by the Court below is modified and this second appeal
is disposed of in terms of the memo of compromise dated
03.10.2021. The memo of compromise along with the sketch
shall form part of the decree. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are 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.
To:
1. The Sub Judge,
Kovilpatti.
2. The District Munsif,
Kovilpatti.
3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 S.A.(MD)NO.863 OF 2007
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
S.A.(MD)No.863 of 2007
01.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
