Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 2290
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI, J.
Nagarajan – Petitioner
Versus
P.S. Natarajan (Died), Susheela – Respondent
CRP No.1015 of 2026 and CMP. No.5448 of 2026
Decided On : 31-07-2026
For the Petitioner: Mr. P. Valliappan, Senior Counsel for Mr. N.S. Suganthan
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Mukunth, Senior Counsel for Mr. T. Balaji.
A final decree based on a compromise terminates the suit. A "supplementary final decree" is not recognized in law, and parties cannot seek to modify the final allotment after it has attained finality and been acted upon, especially after a long delay.
Headnote:(A) Partition Suit - Final Decree - Supplementary Final Decree - Once a final decree is passed based on a compromise and acted upon, the suit stands terminated; a request for a "supplementary final decree" to correct inadvertent omissions after a significant delay is not maintainable as such a concept is unknown to law. (Para 11, 13)
(B) Preliminary Decree - Merger - The rights declared in a preliminary decree are subject to the adjustments and allotments made in the final decree; once the final decree is passed, the preliminary decree merges into it. (Para 11, 13)
(C) Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Extraordinary Jurisdiction - The Court can invoke its powers to prevent grave injustice and strike off non-maintainable applications to avoid wasting judicial time when a matter has already attained finality. (Para 16)
Issues: Whether a supplementary final decree can be passed after a final decree based on a compromise has attained finality and been acted upon.
ORDER :
P.B. BALAJI, J.
The revision petitioners, aggrieved by the order in I.A. No.1 of 2024, permitting impleadment of the revision petitioners as parties in I.A. No.293 of 2020 in O.S.No.165 of 1991 have come up by way of this revision petition.
2. I have heard Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.N.S.Suganthan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Balaji, learned counsel for the first respondent.
3. The submission of Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel summarised as hereunder:
(i) In a suit for partition, the preliminary decree came to be passed on 11.01.1994, declaring respective shares of the parties. However, a compromise was reached amongst the parties and the same was recorded and a final decree came to be passed on 26.10.1994 in I.A. No.1445 of 1994. The first respondent herein was allotted the entire C schedule property measuring an extent of above 5 acres comprises in S.No.461/2, in Poomalur Village.
(ii) The said compromise decree has been acted upon and the first respondent has taken possession of the properties allotted under the said final decree and has been in enjoyment of the same, without any protest or demur that some other property allotted to the first respondent has been left out or that possession of other properties to which first respondent is entitled to have not been handed over to the first respondent.
(iii) The lands in Survey Nos.463/1 and 463/4, have been lawfully purchased for valuable sale consideration, from Chennimalai Gounder and his legal heirs and the petitioners are now absolutely owning the said lands, having purchased it way back in the year 1995, under registered sale deeds.
(iv) The first respondent has even suppressed filing of the suit in O.S. No.299 of 2011, which came to be dismissed on 11.12.2017, and the First Appeal therefrom in A.S. No.18 of 2018, also been dismissed on 25.09.2018. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the said suit was filed for permanent injunction claiming right over Survey Nos.463/1 and 463/4 and the Courts have concurrently held that the first respondent has no right in the said items of the property. He therefore states that even on the ground of material suppression, the first respondent was not entitled to maintain the application in I.A. No.293 of 2020 seeking a supplementary final decree to be passed, pursuant to the preliminary decree that was originally passed on 11.01.1994.
(v) The concept of passing a supplementary final decree is totally alien to civil law and though any number of preliminary decrees can be passed, only one final decree can be passed and therefore, the very application filed in I.A. No.293 of 2020 was not maintainable. He would further state that when such was the case, in the said application to pass a supplementary final decree, the first respondent cannot seek impleadment of the petitioners which has been done by filing I.A. No.1 of 2024.
(vi) The petitioners cannot be made to run to pillar to post and face vexatious and frivolous litigation filed by the first respondent and admittedly, the lands in Survey Nos.463/1 and 463/4 were never allotted to first respondent under the final decree.
4. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel has also relied on the order of this Court in Aburvakounder (Died) and others Vs. Balamurugan and another, reported in 2025 (1) CTC 216.
5. Per contra, Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by merely impleading the petitioners in the application to pass a supplementary final decree and all objections can always be taken by the petitioners in the said I.A. No.293 of 2020. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Trial Court has rightly ordered impleadment as even according to the petitioners, their valuable rights in the property are involved in I.A. No.293 of 2020 and therefore, it would be appropriate
