Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 9086 Mad
Judgement Date : 28 April, 2022
S.A.(MD)No.1259 of 2004
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 28.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
S.A.(MD)No.1259 of 2004
1.Ganesan (Died)
2.Vellaiyappa Gounder (Died)
3.Balashanmugam
4.Selvamari
5.Naveen
6.Kungumaraj
(Minor A6 declared as major vide order dated 28.04.2022 in
CMP(MD)No.4023 & 4024 of 2022)
7.Kannammal
8.V.Nagalakshmi
(A4 toA6 are brought on record as LRs of the
deceased first appellant)
(A7 and A8 are brought on record as LRs of the
deceased A2- vide court order, dated 10.08.2018
in CMP(MD)No.4254 to 4260/2018) .. Appellants
Vs.
1.Palanisami
2.Nachammal
3.Pappathi (Died)
4.Tirupathi Gounder
5.Arumugam
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.1259 of 2004
6.Ganapathi
7.Veluchamy
8.V.Nataraj
(R7 and R8 are bring on record as LRs of deceased
R3 as per order, dated 10.08.2018 in CMP(MD)
No.4254 to 4260 of 2018) .. Respondents
Prayer:This Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code, against the judgment and decree of the District Court at Karur, dated
27.02.2004, in A.S.No.104 of 2001, confirming the judgment and decree of
the Principal District Munsif, Karur, dated 27.09.2001 in O.S.No.381 of
1997.
For Appellants : Mr.Anandchandrasekar
M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates
For R1, 2, 7 and 8 : Mr.S.Ramesh
R3 : Died
R4 to R6 : Given up
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree
of the District Court at Karur, dated 27.02.2004, in A.S.No.104 of 2001,
confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif, Karur,
dated 27.09.2001 in O.S.No.381 of 1997.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.1259 of 2004
2. The sixth appellant is declared as major. The learned counsel for
the appellants is not pressing the case against the respondents 4 to 6. He has
also filed a memo to that effect and the Memo is recorded. The case against
the respondents 4 to 6 is dismissed as given up by the appellants.
3. The appellants 3 to 8 and the respondents 1, 2, 7 and 8 entered
into a compromise. A compromise memo filed. A total extend of 1.20 acres
is allotted to the appellants 3 to 8 and an extend of 44 ½ cents including the
Well and Oil Engine were kept as common. The appellants 3 to 8 and the
respondents 1, 2, 7 and 8 appeared in person. Terms of compromise
explained. Copy of the I.D proof annexed with the compromise memo. The
appellants 3 to 8 and the respondents 1, 2, 7 and 8 and their counsels have
signed the compromise memo.
4. This appeal is allowed as per the terms of the compromise. The
compromise memo is recorded and the memo of compromise shall form part
and parcel of the decree. No costs.
28.04.2022 Ls
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.1259 of 2004
R. THARANI, J.
Ls To
1.The District Court Karur,
2.The Principal District Munsif, Karur.
3.The V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
S.A.(MD)No.1259 of 2004
28.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!