Madras High Court
Seetharaman vs Periyasamy on 24 April, 2023
S.A.No.230 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
S.A.No.230 of 2009
and
M.P.No.1 of 2009
1.Seetharaman
2.Perumal ...Plaintiffs/Respondents/Appellants
Vs.
Periyasamy ...Respondent/Appellant/Defendant
(Sole respondent declared as major and Ramamurthy Kounder
discharged from his guardianship vide order of Court dated 11.11.2014
made in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 in S.A.No.230 of 2009)
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated in A.S.No.221
of 2003 on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge,
Villupuram, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated in O.S.No.171
of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif,
Thirukoilur.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.230 of 2009
For Appellants : Mr.J.R.K. Bhavanantham
For Respondent : Mr.N.Suresh
JUDGMENT
After hearing both sides, this Court suggested the manner of
division of the property. The appeal relates to the construction of a
wall separating the house of the appellants and the respondent. The
trial Court had granted a Decree for 1 feet 3 inches. It was reversed in
appeal against which the present Second Appeal has been filed.
2.After going through the papers in detail and after hearing the
submissions on either side, I felt, justice would be rendered if the
Decree of the Trial Court is restored and that of the Decree of the
Lower Appellate Court is set aside.
3.At that point of time, Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the
respondent pointed out that the house of the respondent rests on the
wall which has been constructed on the area, which is the subject
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.230 of 2009
matter of the dispute. Therefore, a suggestion was made that abutting
the existing wall, another wall will be put up by the respondent at his
cost in order to support his construction. Insofar as the present wall is
concerned, it was suggested that it will vest with the appellants. This
was agreed to by the learned counsel for the appellants. On these
terms, a compromise has been arrived at.
4.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that on
account of the dispute, the parties have incurred cost. The learned
counsel for the respondent very graciously agreed to pay a sum of
Rs.10,000/- as costs to the appellants.
5.The parties are present before this Court today. They have
been identified by the respective counsels. A Memo of Compromise
has also been filed. Six months time is granted to the respondent to
construct a new wall which will support his existing property. The
appellants shall not disturb their activity of putting up a new wall.
After the construction is over, it is open to them either to retain the wall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.230 of 2009
or to remove the wall. The Memo of Compromise is recorded. It shall
form part of the Decree.
6.The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that he
will make payment of Rs.10,000/- within two weeks from today
directly to the appellants.
7.The Second Appeal is disposed of in terms of Compromise.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Post on 04.12.2023 for reporting compliance.
24.04.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
mps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.230 of 2009
To
1.The I Additional Subordinate Judge,
Villupuram.
2.The Principal District Munsif,
Thirukoilur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.230 of 2009
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J,
mps
S.A.No.230 of 2009
and
M.P.No.1 of 2009
24.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
