Madras High Court
Ramasamy vs N.Mahalakshmi on 24 July, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1779 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1779 of 2021
and
A.S.(MD)No.28 of 2021
C.R.P.(MD)No.1779 of 2021:
1.Ramasamy
2.Radhamani ... Petitioners/Respondents/
Petitioners
Vs.
N.Mahalakshmi ... Respondent/Appellant/
Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamill Nadu
Buildings (Lease & Rent Control Act, 1960), to set aside the fair and decreetal
order dated 06.09.2021 made in R.C.A.No.2 of 2019 on the file of the Principal
Sub Court, Palani reversing the fair and decreetal order dated 11.02.2019 made
in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif cum Rent Controller,
Palani.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.K.Vijayaragavan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Vijayanand
A.S.(MD)No.28 of 2021:
1. N.Mahalakshmi
2. L.Nagarajan ... Appellants/Plaintiffs
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 07:27:43 pm )
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1779 of 2021
Vs.
1.Ramasamy
2.Radhamani ... Respondents/Defendants
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Revision Petition to set
aside the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2020 made in O.S.No.38 of 2016 on
the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Palani.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Vijayanand
For Respondent : Mr.V.K.Vijayaragavan
COMMON ORDER
For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per
their ranking before the trial Court in the original suit in O.S.No.38 of 2016.
2.The suit in O.S.No.38 of 2016 was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration
to declare the sale deed executed between the plaintiffs and the defendants as
shame and nominal. The said suit was dismissed. Challenging the said
judgment and decree, the plaintiffs filed the present appeal suit in A.S.(MD)No.
28 of 2021
3.The defendants in O.S.No.38 of 2016 being the decree holder, has filed
R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2015 seeking to evict the plaintiffs from the suit schedule
property. The said petition was allowed. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 07:27:43 pm )
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1779 of 2021
filed R.C.A.No.2 of 2019 and the said appeal was also allowed. Assailing the
said order, the plaintiffs filed C.R.P.(MD)No.1779 of 2021.
4.During the pendency of the appeal suit as well as the Civil Revision
Petition, the parties have amicably settled the matter and entered into a
compromise. The terms of compromise memo reached between the parties is
extracted herein for easy and ready reference:
“1) The appellants admit the title and right of respondents to the
suit property.
2)The appellant No.1 agrees that she became a tenant under the
respondents.(landlords)
3) The appellants in A.S.No.28 of 2021 agree to pay Rs.
1,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore only) to the respondents herein towards
sale consideration for the sale of suit property to them.
4) The respondents in the appeal agree to receive the said amount
to give up their right, title and interest in the suit property and execute the
sale deed for the suit property to the appellants or their nominees or any
persons as directed by the appellants on or before 24.11.2025.
5)The payment of sale consideration and sale deed have to be
executed within a period of four months more specifically on or before
24.11.2025.
6) The appellants can either purchase the suit property for
themselves or nominate purchaser(s) for executing sale deed by the
respondents within the stipulated period.
7) If the appellants are unable to pay Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the
respondents or arrange for sale of property within the above period the
appeal filed by them shall stand dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 07:27:43 pm )
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1779 of 2021
8) The respondents pray that the C.R.P. (MD) No.1779 of 2021 be
allowed granting 2 weeks further time to vacate the suit property from
24.11.2025.
9) The respondent in the C.R.P. undertakes to surrender
possession of the suit property on or before 08.12.2025 to the landlords
and the petitioners(landlords) in C.R.P. (MD) No.1779 of 2021 need not
resort to execution proceedings to take possession of suit property.
10) The petitioners in C.R.P. (MD) No.1779 of 2021 agree not
claim rent for the suit property from the tenant/appellant.
11) Both parties agree for passing orders to the above terms and
the memo of compromise be attached to the appeal decree.
12) Both parties pray for orders without payment of costs.
Dated at Madurai on this the 23rd day of July, 2025”
5.The parties have also appeared in person before this Court and agreed
that they have entered into a compromise and they will abide by the terms and
conditions of the compromise memo filed before this Court.
6.In view of the above said compromise entered between the parties, this
Appeal Suit and the Civil Revision Petition are disposed of. The decree shall be
made in terms of the compromise memo.
7.In view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 07:27:43 pm )
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1779 of 2021
Afcons Infrascture and another vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company
Private limited and others [(2010) 8 SCC], followed by the Delhi High Court in
the case of Munish Kalra vs. Kiran Madan and others [2019 SCC online Del
8021] the appellants in the Appeal suit is entitled for refund of the entire Court
fee. The relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court is extracted hereunder:
“25.In view of the foregoing, it has to be concluded that proper
interpretation of section 89 of the Code requires two changes from a
plain and literal reading of the section. Firstly, it is not necessary for the
court, before referring the parties to an ADR process to formulate or re-
formulate the terms of a possible settlement. It is sufficient if the court
merely describes the nature of dispute (in a sentence or two) and makes
the reference. Secondly, the definitions of `judicial settlement' and
`mediation' in clauses (c) and (d) of section 89(2) shall have to be
interchanged to correct the draftsman's error. Clauses (c) and (d) of
section 89(2) of the Code will read as under when the two terms are
interchanged:
(c) for "mediation", the court shall refer the same to a suitable
institution or person and such institution or person shall be deemed to be
a Lok Adalat and all the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act,
1987 (39 of 1987) shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a Lok
Adalat under the provisions of that Act;
(d) for "judicial settlement", the court shall effect a compromise
between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be
prescribed.
The above changes made by interpretative process shall remain in force
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 07:27:43 pm )
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1779 of 2021
till the legislature corrects the mistakes, so that section 89 is not rendered
meaningless and infructuous.”
8.Accordingly, the Registry is directed to refund the Court fee to the
appellants in the Appeal Suit. The compromise memo shall form part of this
order. No costs.
24.07.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes / No
ta
Note: Issue order copy on 25.07.2025
To
1.The Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court),
Palani.
2.The Principal Sub Court,
Palani.
3.The District Munsif cum Rent Controller,
Palani.
4.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 07:27:43 pm )
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1779 of 2021
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
ta
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1779 of 2021
and
24.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/07/2025 07:27:43 pm )
