[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
T.Pakiayalakshmi vs T. Chellam on 13 March, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
S.A.(MD).No.85 of 2007
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
S.A.(MD).No.85 of 2007
1. T.Pakiayalakshmi
2. T.Narayana Perumal
3. T.Perumal
4. T.Arunachala Perumal
5. T.Vaikunda Lakshmi : Appellants
Vs.
1. T. Chellam
2. T.Kumaresan
3. T.Rethina Pandiyan
4. R.Anna Pushpam
5. S.Periakrishnanatha
6. C. Velliah
7. C.Kasithangam
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 01:02:10 pm )
S.A.(MD).No.85 of 2007
8. C.Kamaraj
9. C.Murugesan
10. L.Anbumalai
: Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. praying to prefer the
Memorandum of Grounds S.A. against the Judgment and decree of the
Learned II Additional Sub Judge, Nagercoil dated 12.10.2006 in A.S.No.
16 of 2003 confirming the Judgment and decree of the Learned II
Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil dated 21.03.2002 in O.S.No.634 of
1995.
For Appellants : Mr. R.Appavu Rethinam
For Respondents : Ms.Jessi Jeeva Priya for R5
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment
and decree passed in A.S.No.16 of 2003, dated 12.10.2006, on the file of
the II Additional Sub-Court, Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and
decree passed in O.S. No. 634 of 1995, dated 21.03.2002 on the file of
the II Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 01:02:10 pm )
2. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed the suit seeking
for the relief of partition and for separate possession of 5/8th share in the
suit properties. During the pendency of the suit, the counsel representing
the plaintiffs made an endorsement to the effect that the parties have
reached a settlement outside court. Recording the same, the suit was
closed.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial
court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in A.S. No. 16 of 2003, on the ground
that such an endorsement was made by the counsel without the
knowledge of the plaintiffs and that there was no compromise between
the parties and hence the judgment and decree passed by the trial court
requires interference.
4. The lower appellate court, by judgment and decree dated
12.10.2006, rendered a finding that once the counsel representing the
plaintiffs has made an endorsement before the court based on the
instructions received from the client, the client cannot turn around
thereafter and try to wriggle out of such instructions given to the counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 01:02:10 pm )
and contest the case on merits. Accordingly, the appellate court, by the
judgment and decree dated 12.10.2006, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved
by the same, the present second appeal has been filed before this Court.
5. This Court merely ordered notice in the second appeal and
did not frame any substantial question of law.
6. After service of notice, the second appeal was listed for final
hearing.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case
involves two substantial questions of law and they are that the lower
appellate court did not frame the points for consideration, as mandated
under Order XLI Rule 31 of “the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908” (in
short “CPC”) and the endorsement made by the counsel based on which
the suit was closed is not in accordance with Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC.
8. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on
either side and the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 01:02:10 pm )
9. In the considered view of this Court, the suit filed by the
plaintiffs was closed based on the endorsement made by the counsel
appearing for the plaintiffs to the effect that the parties have settled the
matter amicably outside court. If according to the plaintiffs they did not
give any such instruction to the counsel, they should have gone before
the trial court and taken such a stand so that the trial court will have an
opportunity to hear and to take a decision. Curiously, the plaintiffs have
chosen to file an appeal before the lower appellate court. There is nothing
much the lower appellate court can do in a case of this nature, since there
was nothing to be considered on merits. Hence, framing points for
consideration will become an academic exercise without any purpose.
Apart from that, the principles under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC will not
apply to the facts of the present case, since the endorsement was made by
the advocate based on the instructions received from the plaintiffs.
10. An advocate is a representative of the client and hence,
whenever a representation is made by the advocate before the court on
behalf of the client, the same has to be acted upon by the court and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 01:02:10 pm )
court need not suspect an advocate and call the party to satisfy itself.
This is not a case where the compromise between the parties was reduced
to writing and it was presented before the court. This is a case where the
counsel for the plaintiffs was informed that the matter has been settled
out of court and the same was acted upon and an endorsement was made
to that effect. As stated supra, if the plaintiffs have not questioned the
same before the trial court, there is no use in agitating the case before the
appellate court and before this Court by way of the second appeal.
11. In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not
find any substantial questions of law involved in the present second
appeal. There is no ground to interfere with the judgment and decree
passed by the appellate court.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
liberty must be granted to the appellants to file a fresh suit. If, according
to the appellants, they have a subsisting claim for a share in the property,
it is left open to them to work out their remedy in the manner known to
law, if so advised.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 01:02:10 pm )
13. In the result, this Second Appeal stands dismissed. No
costs.
13.03.2026
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
PKN
To
1. The II Additional Sub Judge, Nagercoil.
2. The II Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil
3. The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 01:02:10 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
PKN
Judgment made in
Dated:13.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 01:02:10 pm )
