IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.07.2023 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Rev. Appl. Nos. 59 of 2020 & 101 of 2021 and C.M.P.No. 12116 of 2021 against S.A. No. 812 of 2013 & C.M.P.No. 3417 of 2020 R.Vijayasamundeeswari, W/o. Late T.K.Ravichandra Mouli .. Petitioner in both R.A.s Vs.

P.Anandavalli ammal (died)

2. Lakshmikantham W/o. Late Adimoolam

3. Perumal Mudaliar

4. P.Siva Selvam 5. Vijayalakshmi

6. Poonkuzhali

7. P.Athithan (R3 to R7 are impleaded as legal heirs of deceased R1 vide Court order dated 10.11.2022 made in C.M.P.

Nos. 19175 & 19183 of 2022) .. Respondents in both R.A.s PRAYER in Rev.Appl. No.59 of 2020 : Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 Sec.114 of C.P.C., praying to review and reconsider the order dated 02.03.2020 in C.M.P.No.3417 of 2020 in S.A.No. 81 of

2023 passed by this Court.

PRAYER in Rev.Appl. No.101 of 2021 : Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 Sec.114 of C.P.C., praying to review and reconsider the order dated 02.03.2020 in S.A.No. 81 of 2023 passed by this Court.

For Petitioner in : Mr. T.M.Hariharan for both R.A.s Mr.M.Vijayakumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Doraisamy, in both R.A.s Senior Advocate for Mr.A.Bharathi for R1 Mr.S.Sethuraman for R2

C O M M O N O R D E R

The Review Petitioner herein is a third party to the Second Appeal.

The 2^nd respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.113 of 2007 on the file of Sub-Judge, Tindivanam against the 1^st respondent herein for the relief of declaration that she is the absolute owner of 6 acres and 26 cents of land in Survey No.61/1, Pallipattu village, Tindivanam and also prayed to declare the sale deed, which stands in the name of 1^st respondent/defendant dated

28.09.2000 as sham and nominal document.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per the ranking in the suit.

3. The case of plaintiff is that the property originally belongs to her father Arumuga Mudaliar and after his demise, as a only daughter, she is a absolute owner of the property, but her daughter Rajeswari seems to have executed a sale deed in favour of this defendant based on the Will said to be executed by her parents Arumuga Mudaliar and Visalakshi in the year of 1995, but the alleged Will was forged one. So, the vendor of defendant has no title, thereby she prayed to declare the sale deed stands in the name of defendant as null and void. On the contrary, the defendant Anandhavalli contested the suit stating that the vendor Rajeswari was one of the grand daughters of Arumuga Mudaliar and Visalakshi, through plaintiff, she was brought up by a testator and out of love and affection, they have executed a Will, based on that, she perfected her title from the year of 1995 onwards, but the defendant and her husband cultivating the lands much earlier from the year of 1988. Subsequently, the beneficiary Rajeswari executed a sale deed in her favour in the year of 2000, thereby she became absolute owner. After fullfledged trial, the trial court disagreed with the claim of defendant and also not accepted the title of her vendor and consequently declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. Against which, an appeal in A.S.No.31 of 2012 was filed, wherein the first appellate judge also confirmed the findings of the trial court by dismissing the appeal. Against which, the defendant Anandavalli preferred the present Second Appeal in S.A.No. 812 of 2013.

4. During the pendency of the proceedings, there was a compromise between plaintiff and defendant. Accordingly, on the advise of wellwishers to settle the dispute among themselves amicably and in pursuant to the compromise arrayed between the parties, both parties in Second Appeal agreed to settle the issue, the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.113 of 2007 with valuable conditions. Accordingly, the plaintiff hereby affirms and agrees that the defendant shall continue to enjoy possession of the suit property and the plaintiff has no claim or claims in the suit proper