Madras High Court
N.S.M.Sridharan vs C.Thilagamani on 1 November, 2021
1 A.S.(MD)No.72 OF 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
A.S.(MD)Nos.72 & 73 of 2014 and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 1 of 2014
A.S.(MD)N0.72 of 2014
N.S.M.Sridharan ... Appellant / Plaintiff
Vs.
1. C.Thilagamani
2. C.Saravanan
3. M.Santhiya Devi
4. C.Jansirani
5. S.V.Karuppasamy ... Respondents / Defendants
Prayer: Appeal suit filed under Section 96 of C.P.C.,
to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.189 of 2008 dated 12.02.2014 on the file of
the I Additional District Court, Madurai and decree the suit as
prayed for.
A.S.(MD)N0.73 of 2014
N.S.M.Sridharan ... Appellant / Defendant
Vs.
V.Karuppasamy ... Respondent / Plaintiff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
2 A.S.(MD)No.72 OF 2014
Prayer: Appeal suit filed under Section 96 of C.P.C.,
to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.206 of 2010 dated 12.02.2014 on the file of
the I Additional District Court, Madurai and decree the suit as
prayed for.
(in both A.S.)
For Appellant : Mr.Veera Kathiravan,
Senior Counsel,
for Mr.C.Jegannathan.
For R-1 to R-4 : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
For R-5 : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
***
COMMON JUDGMENT
A.S.(MD)No.72 of 2014 arises out of a suit for specific
performance. A.S.(MD)No.73 of 2014 arises out of a suit for
permanent injunction.
2. The plaintiff in the suit for specific performance
and the defendant in the suit for permanent injunction is the
appellant herein. After hearing the learned Senior counsel
appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/5
3 A.S.(MD)No.72 OF 2014
for the respondents, I suggested that the issue can be
amicably resolved.
3. I am happy to record that the advice given by the
counsel had the intended effect. The matters have been fully
and effectively settled. A joint compromise memo has also
been filed. As per the terms of the joint compromise memo,
the appellant / N.S.M.Sridharan shall receive a sum of Rs.
25,00,000/- from the respondents The appellant had deposited
a sum of Rs.5,05,000/- to the credit of O.S.No.189 of 2008 on
the file of the I Additional District Judge, Madurai. Since the
matters have been amicably settled, the appellant will be
entitled to refund of the Court fee paid by him. I am more than
satisfied that the compromise memo has been voluntarily
entered into. It is stated that the second respondent
C.Saravanan is abroad. But then, his consent has been
obtained for entering into compromise. Therefore, the
omission of Saravanan's signature in the memo does not
matter. His counsel has signed on behalf of him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/5
4 A.S.(MD)No.72 OF 2014
4. A reading of the memo of compromise indicates
that the appellant has accepted the impugned judgments and
decrees. These appeals are disposed of in terms of the joint
compromise memo. It shall form part of the decree.
5. Registry is directed to expedite the process of
refund of the Court fee paid by the appellant in these appeals.
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 I Additional District Judge,
Madurai.
2. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/5
5 A.S.(MD)No.72 OF 2014
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
A.S.(MD)Nos.72 & 73 of 2014
01.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
