Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 25084
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.Sounthar, J
P.L.Mohan Babu – Appellant
Versus
K.Raja – Respondent
C.M.P.No.6981 of 2020 | A.S.No.2 of 2018 | O.S.No.19 of 2009
For the Appellant: Mr.V.R.Appaswamee for Mr.V.Vijayarajan
For the Respondents: Mr.P.Raja [R1]
Settlement of a dispute through a Joint Compromise Memo acknowledges prior agreements and payment, leading to the withdrawal of specific performance claims.
Headnote:The case concerns a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure concerning a suit for specific performance. The appellant and first respondent reached a settlement, where the appellant paid Rs.5,50,000 to the first respondent who withdrew the specific performance prayer. The Joint Compromise Memo was recorded, leading to the disposal of the second appeal as settled. The court acknowledged the receipt and validity of previous agreements concerning the property.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. settlement reached in appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. joint compromise memo recorded. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
Today when the second appeal is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff filed a Joint Compromise Memo dated 23.03.2026 and reported that the dispute in the second appeal has been settled between the appellant/third defendant and the first respondent/plaintiff in terms of the Joint Compromise Memo. The respondents 2 and 3/defendants 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Courts below. Hence, they are not necessary parties in this appeal.
2. It is seen from the typed set of papers that the first respondent filed a suit for specific performance against the respondents 2, 3 and the appellant and obtained a decree. The second respondent/first defendant is the agreement vendor. The third respondent/second defendant is the Power Agent of the second respondent. The appellant/third defendant purchased the property from respondents 2 and 3 subsequent to the suit agreement.
3. Now, as per the understanding reached between the appellant and the first respondent, the appellant paid a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- [Rupees Five Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only] to the first respondent by way of demand draft bearing No.026796 dated 20.03.2026 drawn on City Union Bank, Chennai. The first respondent acknowledged the receipt of demand draft and he has also agreed that the sale deed dated 17.10.2007 executed by the respondents 2 and 3 in favour of the appellant was valid and binding on him. He also withdraws his prayer for specific performance.
4. The Joint Compromise Memo is signed by the appellant as well as the first respondent and counter signed by the learned counsel for respective parties identifying them. The first respondent herein is present before this Court and he acknowledged the receipt of the amount and his willingness to give up the decree for specific performance.
In view of the same, the Joint Compromise Memo dated
23.03.2026 is recorded and second appeal is disposed of as settled in terms of the Joint Compromise Memo dated 23.03.2026. The Joint Compromise Memo dated 23.03.2026 shall form part and parcel of the decree in this S.SOUNTHAR , J gm second appeal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
