Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1387 (MAD)

Subramanian v. T. V. Nagarajan & Another

2008-04-24

M.JAICHANDREN

body2008
Judgment :- The second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, in A.S.No.104 of 2004, dated 27. 2005, confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, in O.S.No.274 of 2000, dated 13. 2004. 2. When the second appeal was taken up for hearing, a memo of compromise, dated 4. 2008, signed both by the parties and the counsels appearing on their behalf, has been filed before this Court. 3. The memo of compromise, dated 4. 2008, reads as follows:- "MEMO OF COMPROMISE The appellant and respondents have entered into a settlement in the suit on the following terms. Terms of Compromise: 1. Appellant admits that the suit property belongs to the respondents. 2. The appellant has delivered possession of the suit property to the respondents this day and has also signed the delivery receipt prepared by Court Amin in E.P.126/2005 in O.S.No.274/2000 on the file of Sub Court, Cuddalore. 3. S.A.No.1408/2005, may be dismissed without cost. 4. Respondents are giving up all claims against appellant in respect of past and future damages/mesne profits. 5. The suit O.S.No.274/2000 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, shall be terminated in terms of this memorandum of compromise. 6. The appellant is permitted to continue in possession till 30.6.2008 on humanitarian grounds in order to look for an alternative place. Such occupation shall be purely permissive and in case appellant does not vacate by 30.6.2008 it shall be open to respondents to reenter possession without reference to Court." 4. 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 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 is ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.18567 of 2005, C.M.P.No.28 of 2007 and C.M.P.No.615 of 2008 are closed. No costs.