Madras High Court
Nagappan @ Mannangatty (Died) vs Gopalakrishnan on 27 October, 2025
S.A.No.1679 of 1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
S.A.No.1679 of 1998
1.Nagappan @ Mannangatty (Died)
2.Selvam @ Kothandapani (Died)
3.Malliga
4.Senthil Kumar
(3rd and 4th Appellants brought on record as LRs of
the deceased 2nd Appellant vide order of this Court
dated 03.12.2012 made in CMP.Nos.981 to 983 of 2012
in S.A.No.1679 of 1998)
5.Vasantha
6.Kala
7.Sumathi
8.Ranganathan
9.Velmurugan
(Appellants 5 to 9 are brought on record as LRs of
the deceased 1st Appellant vide order of this Court
dated 11.07.2013 made in CMP.No.1066 of 2012
in S.A.No.1679 of 1998) ... Appellants
vs
Gopalakrishnan ... Respondent
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 21.07.1997 and made
in A.S.No.87 of 1995 on the file of Principal District Judge, Pondicherry
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 12:29:47 pm )
S.A.No.1679 of 1998
reversing the judgment and decree dated 25.07.1995 made in O.S.No.178
of 1990 on the file of I Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry.
For Appellants : Ms.Veena Suresh
for Mr.T.R.Rajaraman
For Respondent : Mr.Marudhachalamurthy
JUDGMENT
The parties to the appeal have entered into a memo of compromise.
In terms of the compromise the plaintiff/sole respondent has given up his
claim for specific performance of agreement of sale deed dated
05.02.1987. The consideration for giving up this claim is the
defendants/appellants paying him a sum of Rs.55,00,000/- in two
installments, one on or before 11.11.2025 and the other by 28.11.2025.
2.Mr.Velmurugan, the 9th appellant is present, so also
Mr.V.Gopalakrishnan, the sole respondent. Both the parties assure this
Court that they understood the contents of the compromise and signed
the same. The learned counsel too state that they have explained the
terms of the compromise to both the parties and appreciating thereof, all
the parties have affixed their signatures to the compromise memo.
3.Both the counsel agree that the respondent Mr.Gopalakrishnan
will be entitled to withdraw the sum deposited by him to the credit of
O.S. No. 178 of 1990 together with interest, on the file of the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 12:29:47 pm )
I Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry. The respondent shall file
an application to withdraw the said amount. On filing of the said
application, the appellants will tender no objection for the same. This
exercise must be carried out before 27.11.2025.
4.I have gone through the compromise memo, I do not find
anything contrary to law or opposed public policy. Hence, the Second
Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise memo. The
compromise memo shall form part of the decree in S.A.No.1679 of 1998.
5.Call on 28.11.2025.
6.The learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry shall
entertain the cheque application filed by the respondent on the basis of
the web copy of an order of this Court and will not insist upon the
certified copy thereof. No costs.
27.10.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
vs
Note: Upload on 28.10.2025
To
1.The Principal District Judge, Pondicherry.
2.The I Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 12:29:47 pm )
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
vs
27.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 12:29:47 pm )
