ORDER

The above application has been filed by the 14th defendant in the suit, seeking to set aside the Compromise Decree dated 1.11.2012 in C.S.No.122 of 2008.

2. A brief narration of the facts is essential for appreciating the point in issue.

3. The respondents 1 to 4 herein had filed the suit, C.S.No.122 of 2008, seeking partition of their 3/8th share in the suit schedule properties.

4. The admitted case of the parties is that the property belonged to one Duraisami, the father of the first defendant and the fourth plaintiff. Respondents 5 to 12/Defendants 2 to 9 in the suit are the children of the deceased son Ramachandran and Respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs 1 to 3 and respondents 13 to 16/defendants 10 to 13 are the legal representatives of deceased daughter Krishnaveni.

5. The 5th respondent/first defendant had filed a written statement together with a counter claim seeking partition of his 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. The respondents 6 to 12 had contested the suit. However, ultimately, the parties, namely the respondents 1 to 16 herein, had entered into a memorandum of compromise on 31.08.2012 in and by which the properties were partitioned and each sharer was alloted a