Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 32704
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Honourable Mr Justice S. SOUNTHAR
RAJU (DIED) – Appellant
Versus
VADIVEL – Respondent
SA(MD)/475/2005
Compromise agreements between parties can be recorded and enforced by the court, leading to the disposal of pending cases.
Headnote:
COMPROMISE DECREE - [LAND DISPUTE] - The Second Appeal was disposed of in terms of the Joint Compromise memo filed by the parties, whereby they agreed to settle their differences and withdraw all pending cases related to the disputed properties.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose over the ownership of various properties, including agricultural lands and houses, between the appellants (plaintiffs) and the respondents (defendants). The appellants claimed equal share in the properties, while the respondents claimed exclusive ownership of certain properties. The trial court dismissed the appellants' suit, finding that the respondents had equal share in all the suit properties. The appellants appealed to the District Court, which partly allowed the appeal and modified the trial court's decree. Aggrieved by the District Court's decision, the respondents filed a second appeal in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the case, as the parties had entered into a compromise agreement and filed a Joint Compromise memo. The High Court recorded the compromise and disposed of the second appeal in terms of the compromise memo.
Issues: Ownership of disputed properties
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court did not establish any legal principles or precedents in this case, as the dispute was resolved through a compromise agreement between the parties.
Final Decision: The High Court disposed of the second appeal in terms of the Joint Compromise memo filed by the parties, whereby they agreed to settle their differences and withdraw all pending cases related to the disputed properties.
SA(MD). No.475 of 2005
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
Wednesday, the Fourth day of January Two Thousand Twenty Three
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.SOUNTHAR
SA(MD). No.475 of 2005
1 RAJU (DIED)
...
Appellant / Respondent / Plaintiff
2 ARPUTHAM,
W/O.LATE.P.RAJU,
3 ANANDAN,
S/O.LATE.P.RAJU
4 MUTHULAKSHMI,
D/O.LATE.P.RAJU
5 MARUDHUPANDIAN (DIED)
6 KATTABOMMAN,
S/O.LATE.P.RAJU,
(Appellants 2 to 6 brought on record as LRs
of the deceased sole Appellant)
7 MUNIYAMMAL,
W/O. LATE. MARUTHUPANDIAN,
8 MINOR. VETHA VIYASH,
S/O. LATE. MARUTHUPANDIAN,
9 MINOR. NACHIYASRI,
D/O. LATE. MARUTHUPANDIAN,
(MINORS REPRESENTED THROUGH THEIR MOTHER
AND GUARDIAN - 7th APPELLANT)
... Appellants
(APPELLANTS 7 TO 9 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD
AS LRS OF THE DECEASED 5th APPELLANT VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 21.12.2022 MADE IN CMP
(MD)Nos.12343, 12345 and 12346 OF 2022
SA(MD)No.475 of 2005)
...Vs...
1 VADIVEL
2 RAVICHANDRAN
...
Respondents / Appellants /
Defendants
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). No.475 of 2005
Prayer:-
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the
judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge, Virdhunagar
Distrct at Srivilliputhur, in A.S. No.59 of 2004 dated 19.01.2005
which reserved the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge,
Aruppukottai in O.S. No.265 of 2001 dated 05.12.2003 and to restore
and confirm the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Court,
Aruppukottai in O.S. No.265 of 2001 dated 05.12.2003.
DECREE:-
This Second Appeal having is came up for final hearing on this
date, in the presence of Mr.R.Devaraj, Advocate for Appellant and
Mr.A.Sivaji, Advocate for respondent and the appellant and
respondent herein having settled their differences and entered into
compromise requesting the court to pass a decree in the Appeal in
turn themselves through their respective advocates and having filed
a joint compromise memo dated 04.01.2023 duly signed by the parties
as well as by their Advocates, and upon perusing the grounds of
Appeal as well as the judgment and decree of the Courts below and
the records relating to the case and this court while recording the
said memo of compromise and disposing the Second Appeal and Civil
Revision Petition in terms of the Joint Compromise memo, and doth
order and decree as follows ;-
1. In pursuance of the Joint Compromise memo, the compensation
which has to be awarded through competent officer has been deposited
as per L.A.O.P.No.55/2001 and L.A.O.P.No.315/2001 on the file of the
Sub-Court, Aruppukkottai filed by the 1st party among us on his own.
The 1st party agrees to give 1 /2 share to the 2nd parties after the
expenses of litigation. The 2nd party also agree to withdraw the
compensation amount deposited in Sub-Court, Aruppukkottai through
his counsel in L.A.O.P.No.55/2001 and L.A.O.P.No.315/2001 and hand
over the amount to either to the 2nd party or heirs of 2nd party as
stated supra.
2.
The 1st and 2nd party agree that 16th scheduled suit
property in Survey No.56/1 measuring about 0.60.0 hectares disputed
in O.S.No.265/2001 is purely owned by the 2nd respondent, and 1st and
2nd party also agree that there is no right and possession over the
2nd party or their legalheirs in respect of the above said property.
The scheduled properties in 18,19,20,21,24,25 and 26 in
O.S.No.265/2001 is separately owned by the 1st party among us and
the 2nd agree that there is no rights over the aforesaid properties
to the 2nd party and his legal heirs. Even though the case was
dismissed regarding the 22nd item of the property in A.S.No.59/2004,
the above said 22nd Item of the property was acquired by the
Government and compensation has been given and the same is under
land acquisition proceedings. The 1st party and 2nd party among us
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA
