Scope of interference u/A 227 is restricted.

(PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition against the order and decretal order dated 1.2.2005 passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Thirukkazhikundram in I.A. No.163 of 1997 of O.S. No.96 of 1971.)

The respondents filed an application for passing of final decree which was ordered and the revision petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by the said order.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S. No.96 of 1971 for partition of their 71/225th shares. The first respondent herein is the widow of one Gopalakrishna Naicker and the second respondent is her daughter. One Govindasamy Naicker, who was the first defendant, had two sons. One was the aforesaid Gopalakrishna Naicker and the other, the first petitioner herein. He also had two daughters, who are the third respondent herein and one Sivakami Ammal, whose daughter is the fourth respondent. The fifth respondent is the purchaser of one item of the suit property. The aforesaid Govindasamy Naicker, the deceased first defendant and his two sons constituted a Joint Hindu Family. From out of the income of this joint family nucleus, the other properties were purchased. The husband of the first respondent died in January, 1966, leaving as his heirs as per the Hindu Succession Act, respondents 1 and 2 and his mother, Devi Ammal. The said Devi Ammal died in August, 1970, survived by her husband, the first defendant, her other son, the first petitioner herein and two daughters. After the death of her husband, the first respondent was ill-treated and it became impossible for her to live in the joint family. Respondents 1 and 2 issued a notice dated 18.9.1967 seeking partition. A reply was sent to this notice by the deceased first defendant denying the claim made by respondents 1 and 2. The suit was filed. The suit property consists of nanja lands and house sites as well as punja lands, totalling about 25 acres in Vengambakkam Village, Chengalpet Taluk. The suit was hotly contested.

3. A preliminary decree was passed as prayed for on 30.7.1974. In the year 1997, the first respondent filed I.A. No.163 of 1997 for passing of final decree.

4. This was resisted by the petitioners herein on the ground that there was a panchayat in the year 1977 and that the first respondent agreed to receive Rs.19,000/- in cash, being the value of her share. Rs.10,000/- was paid on the date of the panchayat itself in the presence of the panchayatdars. As per the averments in the counter, "the panchayat was not reduced into writing consequent on the mutual faith and confidence". Five months thereafter, the petitioners claim that they paid Rs.8,000/- to the first respondent in the presence of M/s. Sankaran, Vinayagam, Venugopal and Chandrasekaran. For the balance of Rs.1,000/-, the first petitioner executed a promissory note in favour of the first respondent dated 8.8.1977 in the presence of Varadarajan. He paid interest for the amount due under the pro-note till 15.5.1980. The first respondent received the principal on that date, made an endorsement behind the pro-note and returned the pro-note to the first petitioner. The petitioners claim that suppressing all this, an application for final decree has been filed by respondents 1 and 2. Sufficient reason has not been given for filing the application so belatedly. This itself would prove that under the compromise, the entire matter had been settled. This in brief is the stand taken by the petitioners in their counter. The court below disbelieved the case of the panchayat and ordered the application. Against this order, the revision has been preferred.

5. Mr. M.S. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that there is no denial by the respondents as to the fact of the panchayat. The case of the respondents that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was received towards costs is not believable. According to the learned counsel, there could not have been any panchayat just for payment of costs. Learned counsel would further submit that it