Judgment :- Today, when the second appeal in S.A.No.487 of 2005 is listed under the caption `For Reporting settlement, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted that there has been a settlement in the matter. counsels appearing on their behalf, has been filed before this Court. The joint memo filed before this Court is as follows: "1. The respondents hereby confirm the sale deed already executed by the Execution Court Viz., X Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai registered on 12.08.2002 as document No.2339 of 2002, at SRO, Royapuram in favour of Mr. T.S. Radhakrishnan, the appellant herein, pertaining to the schedule property. 2. The respondents hereby agree to withdraw S.A.No.488 of 2005 which has been filed by the respondents in view of the compromise and have no objection for the appellant to withdraw the amount deposited by him in S.A.No.487 of 2005. 3. The respondents hereby confirm that hereafter they shall have no right, title or interest over the schedule mentioned property and they also confirmed that the appellant is the sole and absolute owner in the pursuance of the sale deed executed by the court and that the appellant is in possession of the subject property. 4. The appellant hereby not presses the second appeal as against the third respondent Mr. Alawanthar." 2. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and in view of the joint memo filed before this Court, the judgment and decree of both the Courts below in S.A.No.487 of 2005, are set aside and there will be a decree in terms of the memo of compromise. The memo of compromise shall form part of the decree. The second appeal in S.A.No.487 of 2005 is ordered accordingly. No costs. 3. In so far as the second appeal in S.A.No.488 of 2005, is concerned the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has made an endorsement seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the second appeal. 4. Based on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and in view of the endorsement made, the second appeal in S.A.No.488 of 2005 is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.