BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 30.10.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 10.12.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR A.S.(MD).No.120 of 2020 and CMP(MD).No.4069 of 2020 Nagaraja Vandaiyar ....Appellant/Plaintiff Vs

1.S.Gunasekaran

2.Kanagaraj 3.Banumathi

4.K.Amirtham ....Respondents/Defendants

5.The District Collector Thanjavur ...5^th Respondent/----

(R5 impleaded vide Court order dated 05.03.2015)

Prayer: The First Appeal has been filed under Section 96 of C.P.C, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2014 made in O.S.No.7 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Thanjavur and allow the above first appeal.

For Appellants : Mr.V.V.Sathya For Mr.S.Vellaichamy For Respondents :Mr.A.Senthil Kumar For Mr.S.Jeyachandran for R1 to R4 :Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam Government Advocate for R5

J U D G M E N T

(Made by R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

The plaintiff in O.S. No. 7 of 2010 on the file of the First Additional District Court (PCR Court), Thanjavur has filed the present appeal challenging the dismissal of the suit.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2.The suit has been filed seeking to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff to set aside the compromise decree and judgement passed in O.S.No. 81 of 1996 on the file of Subordinate Court, Thanjavur on 10.08.1999 and to reopen the suit for further trial.

3.The pleadings of the parties:

a) The Plaintiff has contended that he had filed a suit for partition in O.S.No. 81 of 1996 before Sub Court Thanjavur claiming 1/3^rd share. The suit was dismissed for default on 17.04.1998.

b) According to the plaintiff, the first defendant in that suit had filed a police complaint and he was charge sheeted in S.C.No 43 of 2001 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Thanjavur and ultimately, he was acquitted. Since the plaintiff was not keeping in good health and his family was harassed and threatened by the defendants, he has not filed any application to restore the suit. Therefore, his counsel namely Mr.Parthasarathy had reported 'No Instruction'. He had not engaged any other counsel to restore the suit.

c)It is further contended that when his mother had passed away on

20.12.2006, he came to know from one Mr.A.Pughalendi that O.S.No.81 of 1996 was restored and later, a compromise was recorded. When the plaintiff had approached the present Advocate, he came to know that a compromise has been recorded by engaging a counsel by name Mr.S.Govindarajan who had filed an application to restore the suit and has also signed the compromise for passing a compromise decree.

d)According to the plaintiff, at the instance of the defendants, with an ulterior motive, without the knowledge of the plaintiff, vakalath and compromise has been manipulated. In fact, the plaintiff has not signed any affidavit or compromise petition and he has not engaged the counsel by name Mr.S. Govindarajan.

e)According to the plaintiff, the Court has not verified the date or contents thereon before passing a compromise decree. In fact, no amount was paid to the plaintiff as recited in the compromise memo. The compromise memo has been filed by fraud and suppressing the particulars and no date has been mentioned with regard to the payment or mode of payment.

f)While criminal case was pending before the authority, by way of impersonation, the suit has been restored and the decree has been passed.

g)It is further contended that the plaintiff has entrusted blank papers with signature and blank vakalath with signature to the defendant and probably, he might have used the same for manipulating and creating a record for getting compromise decree by playing fraud and impersonation.

h)It is further contended in the plaint that when the suit for partition was filed in the year 1996 and a criminal complaint was instituted as against the plaintiff in the year 1998, it is strange that a compromise would have been entered into in the year 1999. In fact, the criminal case ended in acquittal only in the year 2005. Hen