Madras High Court
Unknown vs K.Raja Gounder on 27 October, 2025
S.A. No. 412 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
S.A. No. 412 of 2010
and M.P. No. 1 of 2010
1.S.Ramasamy
2.Ponnusamy
3.Kandasamy Gounder (died)
[A3 died, AA4 & 5 LRs of the
deceased A3 and AA7, 8 B/R as LRs
of the deceased A3 viz., Kandasamy
Gounder vide Court orders dt.
26.02.2021 made in MP No.2 of 2010
in S.A. No. 412 of 2010 (RNMJ)]
4.Sundaram
5.Chellammal
6.Allimuthu (died)
[A6 died, Appellants 9 and 10 B/R as
LRs of the deceased A6 viz.,
Allimuthu vide Court orders dt.
19.03.2021 made in CMP 4944 of
2021 in SA No. 412 of 2010.]
7.Perumayee
8.Rajammal
9.Lakshmi
10.Senthilkumar ...Appellants
Vs.
K.Raja Gounder ...Respondent
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 01:32:58 pm )
S.A. No. 412 of 2010
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.12.2009 made
in A.S. No. 6 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchengode, reversing
the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2008 made in O.S. No. 86 of 2000 on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Manoharan
Plaintiffs 3 & 6 (died)
Plaintiffs 1, 2, 9 & 10 (given up)
For Respondent : Mr.A.Palaniappan
JUDGMENT
Both side counsel submitted that a joint compromise memo has been
entered into between the appellants 4, 5, 7 and 8 and the respondents.
2.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants
1, 2, 9 and 10 are neither the owners nor in any way concerned with the lands
in which the cart track runs. Hence, the appeal against the appellants 1, 2, 9
and 10 not pressed, as their interest is not affected. The learned counsel for
the appellants has made an endorsement to that effect. Hence, the appeal
against the appellants 1, 2, 9 and 10 is dismissed as not pressed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 01:32:58 pm )
4. Remaining appellants, vis., the appellants 4, 5, 7 and 8 are present.
The appellants 5, 7 and 8 are the mother and the sisters of the 4 th appellant,
viz., Sundaram and they have also given up their right in favour of 4th
appellant and the appellants 5, 7 and 8 have executed a release deed in favour
of the 4th appellant.
5. The sole respondent/ plaintiff viz., Rajagounder is not present
though he has affixed his signature in the terms of compromise.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
respondent/ plaintiff is bed-ridden and he is not able to make his personal
appearance and that the counsel would make an endorsement to that effect in
the Court record in terms of the compromise itself.
7. A sketch has also been attached along with the terms of compromise,
which shall also form part of the terms of compromise. The joint compromise
memo dated 14.10.2025 is recorded, which is taken on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 01:32:58 pm )
8. In pursuant to the same, the appeal is allowed in terms of the joint
compromise memo, which shall form part of the decree. No costs.
Consequently, connected petition is closed.
27.10.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
Maya
To
1. The Sub Judge, Tiruchengode.
2. The District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.
3. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 01:32:58 pm )
Dr.R.N.MANJULA, J.
Maya
Dated : 27.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 01:32:58 pm )
