Madras High Court
Velayutham vs Mariyayee on 22 September, 2021
1 S.A.(MD)Nos.876 & 877 OF 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)Nos.876 & 877 of 2011 and
M.P.(MD)Nos.2 & 2 of 2011
S.A.(MD)No.876 of 2011
Velayutham ... Appellant / Respondent /
Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Mariyayee
2. Periyasamy ... Respondents/ Appellants /
Defendants
Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of
C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2010 in
A.S.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the District Court, Karur,
reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2006 in
O.S.No.24 of 2004 on the file of the Sub judge, Kulithalai.
S.A.(MD)No.877 of 2011
Velayutham ... Appellant / Respondent /
Plaintiff
Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/5
2 S.A.(MD)Nos.876 & 877 OF 2011
1. Mariyayee
2. Periyasamy ... Respondents /Appellants /
Defendants
3. Natarajan ... Respondent /Appellant /
Plaintiff
Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of
C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2010 in
A.S.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the District Court, Karur,
reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2006 in
O.S.No.50 of 2001 on the file of the Sub judge, Kulithalai.
(in both S.As.)
For Appellant : Mr.K.Govindarajan
For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.G.Sridharan
***
COMMON JUDGMENT
These second appeals arise out of a suit for partition
and a suit for injunction.
2. Mariyayee and Periyasamy filed the partition suit in
O.S.No.50 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Kulithalai,
against Natarajan and Velayutham. Velayutham filed the
injunction suit in O.S.No.24 of 2004 before the very same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/5
3 S.A.(MD)Nos.876 & 877 OF 2011
Court, against Mariyayee and Periyasamy. Both the suits were
tried together and the partition suit was partly decreed, while
the injunction suit was decreed in toto. Aggrieved by the
same, Mariyayee and Periyasamy filed A.S.No.2 of 2009 and
A.S.No.34 of 2009 before the District Judge, Karur. Vide
judgment and decree dated 12.03.2010, the appeal filed
against the partition suit was allowed in toto and the appeal
filed against the injunction suit was also allowed. Challenging
the same, Velayutham filed these two second appeals.
3. When the second appeals were listed before me,
considering the relationship between the parties, I suggested
to the learned counsel on either side to explore the possibility
of compromise.
4. I am happy to record that the steps taken by the
learned counsel bore fruit and a joint compromise memo has
been filed. Velayutham is present in person before me.
Periyasamy is also present in person before me. They have
been duly identified by the respective counsel. Therefore, the
impugned judgment and decree are modified and the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3/5
4 S.A.(MD)Nos.876 & 877 OF 2011
appeals are disposed in terms of the joint compromise memo
dated 22.09.2021. It shall form part of the decree. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
22.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
Note: 1. 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.
2. Issue order copy on 29.09.2021.
To:
1. The District Judge,
Karur.
2. The Sub judge,
Kulithalai.
3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4/5
5 S.A.(MD)Nos.876 & 877 OF 2011
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
S.A.(MD)Nos.876 & 877 of 2011
01.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
