The court affirmed that a compromise decree reached finality and cannot be challenged in subsequent proceedings, establishing the plaintiff's ownership and entitlement to possession.

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenging the decree and judgment granting declaration in favour of the plaintiff and recovery of possession, the present appeal has been filed.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their own ranking in the Trial Court.

3. Brief background of the case is as follows:

a. The second defendant is wife and the third defendant is the son of the first defendant. The suit property originally belonged to ancestral property of Chellappa Gounder, who is the father of the 1^st defendant. The Chellappa Gounder and their heirs entered into a partition deed dated 02.04.1976, in which, property to an extent of 1.27 acres in S.F.No.518/1 at Veerapandi village was allotted to the 1^st defendant. Though they have entered into a partition deed in the year 1976, since, the first defendant was a minor, the property was enjoyed as a joint family properties. As the first defendant is addicted to alcohol, the Chellappa Gounder was maintaining all the properties as a joint family. Further, the first defendant has entered into a sale agreement dated 26.10.1989 with one Manoharan. Therefore, Chellappa Gounder has filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.2601 of 1989 against his sons and the first defendant. He also filed another suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.2833 of 1990 against the first defendant and agreement holders. Thereafter, the father of the agreement holder Ramasamy has filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.2970 of 1989 against the first defendant and his father Chellappa Gounder.

b. Thereafter, Chellappa Gounder, agreement holder Manoharan and the first defendant entered into a sale agreement dated 08.10.19990, which Chellappa Gounder agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- to the agremennt holder and Rs.1,45,000/- to the first defendant. However, the first defendant has sold the property to an extent of 10 cents in S.F.No.518/1 at Veerapandi Village in favour of Manoharan, that apart, sold the property to an extent of 15 cents in S.F.No.518/1 at Veerapandi Village in favour of one Arputharaj.

c. At that time, the daughter of Chellappa Gounder namely Amirthamani has filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.1 of 1991 against his father and other legal heirs. In the above suit, a compromise decree was passed on 10.01.1991. As per the compromise decree, the suit property to an extent of 1.02 acres in S.F.No.518/1A was allotted to Amirthamani and her father Chellappa Gounder was allotted 0.25 acres in S.F.No.518/1A. Prior to the compromise, the first defendant had already sold 25 cents in S.F.No.518/1A in favour of Ramasamy and Maria Arputharaj. Therefore, the first defendant, Manoharan and Chellappa Gounder entered into an agreement dated 19.05.1993, in which the first defendant has agreed and accepted the compromise decree and also he agreed that he received the settlement amount from Amirthamani. On the same day, Chellappa Gounder has entered into another agreement with Ramasamy and Maria Arputhraj. As per the said agreement Chellappa Gounder has purchased the property, what the first defendant sold before the compromise. Therefore, the entire property has been enjoyed by Chellappa Gounder and family members only as per the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.1 of 1991.

d. After 7 years of passing of the deree for partition, the first defendant has filed another suit in O.S.No.1382 of 1998 and the same was re- numbered in O.S.No.3755 of 2004 on the file of II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore questioning the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.1 of 1991. The plaintiff has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and the same was dismissed on 30.03.2011. Challenging the dismissal, the plaintiff have filed revision before this Court in CRP.No.3996 of 2011, wherein, this Court allowed the revision on 01.04.2013. SLP was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.No.5831 of 2014 and the same was dismissed. The plain