Madras High Court
M.Kuppusamy@Kannisamy vs K.Natchimuthu on 28 November, 2023
Author: G. Chandrasekharan
Bench: G. Chandrasekharan
S.A(MD)No.402 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN
S.A(MD)No.402 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD) No.5268 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD) No.16081 of 2023
1.M.Kuppusamy@Kannisamy
2.K.Muthulakshmi
3.P.Kalimuthu
4.K.Tamil Selvi ...Appellants
-Vs-
1.K.Natchimuthu
2.P.Kaliyammal
N.Karuppasamy Gounder (died)
3.Thirulogachandran
4.K.Ramalingam
5.P.Thangammal
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.402 of 2021
6.P.Backiyam
7.P.Arulmozhi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.69 of 2017
dated 01.07.2020 by the Principal Sub Court, Palani, confirming the judgment
and decree made in O.S.No.182 of 2007 dated 24.08.2017 by the District Munsif
Court, Oddanchathiram.
For Appellants : Mr.D.Venkatesh
For Respondents : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar
JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed challenging the Judgments and decrees passed
in A.S No.69 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Palani and in O.S.No.
182 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Oddanchathiram.
2. The first respondent filed the suit for declaration of title in respect of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
suit properties and also for recovery of possession. The said suit was decreed.
Against the said Judgment, appeal in A.S.No. 69 of 2017 was filed and that was
also dismissed. Challenging the said Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts
below, the defendant 8 to 7 filed the present second appeal.
3. During the pendency of this second appeal, the appellants and first
respondent entered into a compromise and the compromise was recorded in the
form of the memo. The respondents 2 to 7 remained ex parte before the Courts
below. The terms of compromise read as follows:-
a) as against the decree in favour of the first
respondent/plaintiff in respect of Survey No.425/1A1 for 36 cent the
first respondent/plaintiff has agreed to take only 27 cents (0.10.92
hectares). As regards Survey No.426/4A1 1st respondent/plaintiff
given up his claim as per the decree. As regards Survey No.425/1A3
as against the decree for 4.5 cents, the plaintiff/1st respondent will
take the 8.65 cents (0.03.50 Hectares). In addition to that the
appellants/defendants 8 to 11 agreed that the plaintiff/1st respondent
shall be entitled to 5.31 cents (0.02.15 Hectares) Survey No.432/3A3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
b) The 1st respondent/plaintiff is therefore being given/allotted
an extent 40.96 cents (0.16.57 Hectares) as against the decree
granted for 48.5 cents.
c) The property that is now belonging to the plaintiff/1st
respondent as per the readjustment is shown in green color in the
sketch appended to joint memo of compromise.
d) The first respondent/plaintiff confirms that he is fully
satisfied with this readjustment and the appellants/defendants 8 to 11
confirmed that the plaintiff/first respondent has taken possession of
property as per this compromise and he is in possession and
enjoyment of the same and they have no objection for mutation of
patta and effecting subdivisions in favour of 1st respondent/plaintiff as
per this compromise.
e) Likewise the first respondent/plaintiff has no objection for
the mutation of patta and subdivisions of yellow washed portions
comprised in Survey No.426/4A1 measuring 82.78 cents (0.33.50
Hectares) and 425/1A1 measuring 100.82 cents (0.40.81 Hectares) in
favour of the appellants/defendants 8 to 11.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
f) The property that is now belonging to the appellants/
defendants 8 to 11 as per the readjustment is shown in yellow color in
the sketch appended to joint memo of compromise.
g) In Survey No.425/1A1 there is an area shortage of 9.31 cents
(0.03.77 Hectares). As per title documents of both parties the extent
of the land in Survey No.425/1A1 is 1 acre 37 cents. But as of now
the available extent on the ground is only 1 acre 28 cents. As such
both parties agreed to divide the same in the following manner i.e.,
the appellants/defendants 8 to 11 are allotted 1 acre 1 cents (0.40.81
Hectares ) and 1st respondent/plaintiff is allotted 0.27 cents (0.10.92
Hectares). Both the parties agreed to mutate patta as per their
respective shares. In future both parties will not make any claim over
the extent off 9.31 cents (0.03.77 Hectares) which is actually not
available on the ground.
4. The appellants and the first respondent were present before this Court on
23.11.2023 and during enquiry about the compromise reached between them, they
confirmed the terms of compromise. As directed by this Court, they have filed a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petition to record the compromise in C.M.P(MD)No.16081 of 2023 under Order
23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. In view of the compromise reached between the parties, the
compromise petition in C.M.A(MD)No.16081 of 2023 is allowed on the aforesaid
terms reached between them in the compromise memo. Accordingly, this Second
Appeal is disposed of on the terms of the compromise detailed above. The
compromise memo filed along with the sketch, shall form part of the decree.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.11.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
cp
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Palani.
2.The District Munsif,
Oddanchathiram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
cp
and
and
28.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
