The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, which requires the court to record a compromise if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, in writing and signed by the parties.

1. The application is filed by the defendants seeking to record the joint memo of compromise dated 110. 2007.

2. The applicants/defendants have contended in the application as follows:-

The second applicant is the President of the first applicant Charitable Trust. Settlement talks were initiated by Mr.Rajendran, Secretary of the first applicant Trust with the plaintiff. It was agreed that a total sum of Rs.15,00,000/= shall be given to the plaintiff in full and complete settlement of all his claims. A due resolution was passed by the Board of Trustees accepting the terms of compromise. The plaintiff attended the meeting with his son Mr.L.Balakumar, an Advocate by profession. The joint memo of compromise containing the agreed terms was prepared in triplicate. At the meeting, the typed copy of the joint memo of compromise was read over by way of information to all present by the Secretary Mr.Rajendran. After Mr.Balakumar scrutinized the joint memo of compromise, he explained the contents to his father. The second applicant, on behalf of the Trust and the respondents, signed in all the three copies of the written memo of compromise in the presence of all persons present. Mr.D.S.Shanmugam, Vice President and M.Sivagnanam of Salem signed the three copies of the joint memo of compromise as witnesses. A cheque for Rs.3,12,500/= drawn in favour of the respondent by the first applicant was given to Shri.R.M.Veerappan, who, in turn, gave the cheque to the respondent through his son Mr.L.Balakumar. The entire proceedings were photographed by Vel Photo Services. The respondent encashed the cheque for Rs.3,12,500/= on 30.10.2007. The suit claim stands adjusted wholly by the lawful agreement of joint memo of compromise in writing and signed by the parties voluntarily in full and complete settlement of all claims made in the plaint. The respondent evaded to co-operate the applicants to file the joint memo of compromise before the court. Thereafter, the respondent addressed a letter to the Secretary of the first applicant and sent it along with a cheque for Rs.3,12,500/= in favour of the first applicant. It has been contended in the letter that some of the terms originally agreed orally does not form part of the compromise and therefore, the respondent was not agreeable to the terms of compromise. There was no oral agreement except the terms clearly set out in the joint memo of compromise. Therefore, the applicants seek for recording the joint memo of compromise signed by both the parties.

3. The respondent, in his counter has stated as follows:-

No one can be compelled to sign a compromise memo or forced to accept certain terms contained therein contrary to his wishes. Mr.V.Rajendran, the General Secretary of the first applicant Sangam contacted the respondent and requested him to settle the issue amicably. He assured the respondent that he would fulfil all his demands. The demands are enclosed as annexure A to the affidavit filed by the respondent. He informed the respondent that he would take steps to remove Mr.K.S.Subbiah from the post of the President of the first applicant Sangam. There was a meeting at the first applicant Sangam premises on 110. 2007. The President and General Secretary of Sangam obtained his signature in the purported joint memorandum of compromise by making misrepresentation of the terms of compromise. The respondent was not permitted to talk and discuss the terms of compromise. The respondent was not well versed in legal matters. The respondent was thrust upon a cheque dated 110. 2007 for a sum of Rs.3,12,500/=. The originally agreed upon terms do not form part of the compromise proposal and consequently, the respondent decided to rescind the compromise. The cheque was handed over with a promise that a further sum of Rs.15,00,000/= shall be paid as cash proceeds agreeing to fulfil fifteen items of demands made by the respondent. The son of the respondent, though a Law Graduate, has never practised as Ad