Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In view of the settlement entered into between the parties, this Second Appeal is disposed of, in terms of the Joint Compromise Memo, dated 16
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties have entered into an understanding and compromised the dispute among them amicably. The compromise has been recorded. The Joint Compromise Memo, dated 16.06.2025, signed by both the appellants and the respondent, along with their counsel, is…
Judgment
S.A.(MD) No.242 of 2019BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 16.06.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGANS.A. (MD) No.242 of 20191.Maheswari2.Manoharan... Appellants-vs-SP.Subramanian... RespondentPRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 31.01.2019, passed in A.S.No.18 of 2017 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 24.03.2016, passed in O.S.No.59 of 2011 on the file of District Munsif, Devakottai. For Appellants: Mr.A.K.ManickamFor Respondent: Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan____________Page 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD) No.242 of 2019JUDGMENTDefendants are before this Court on appeal.
This Second Appeal is filed, challenging the judgment and decree, dated 31.01.2019, passed in A.S.No.18 of 2017 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 24.03.2016, passed in O.S.No.59 of 2011 on the file of District Munsif, Devakottai.
The suit was filed in respect of a dispute concerning the ''B'' Schedule property. The suit was decreed. The appeal filed by the defendants came to be dismissed, against which they have preferred this Second Appeal.
Operative part
During the pendency of the appeal, the parties have entered into an understanding and compromised the dispute among them amicably. The compromise has been recorded. The Joint Compromise Memo, dated 16.06.2025, signed by both the appellants and the respondent, along with their counsel, is filed before this Court. The parties are present before this Court and have confirmed that the compromise has been entered into. The respondent, due to his old age, appeared through video conferencing and he also confirmed the settlement.____________Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD) No.242 of 20195. In view of the settlement entered into between the parties, this Second Appeal is disposed of, in terms of the Joint Compromise Memo, dated 16.06.2025. The Joint Compromise Memo shall form part of the decree. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.(MD) No.1716 of 2020 is closed. 16.06.2025NCC :Yes / NoIndex :Yes / NoInternet: Yes / NodixitTo:1.Subordinate Judge, Devakottai. 2. District Munsif, Devakottai. 3. Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.____________Page 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD) No.242 of 2019G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.dixitS.A.(MD) No.242 of 201916.06.2025____________Page 4 of 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the settlement entered into between the parties, this Second Appeal is disposed of, in terms of the Joint Compromise Memo, dated 16
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 100.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.