Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 727 (MAD)

Sabiammal v. Jannathunnisha

2014-03-21

M.JAICHANDREN

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. The Second Appeal is filed praying to set aside the decree and judgment of the District Judge, Nagapattinam passed in A.S.No.41 of 2002 dated 11.12.2003 modifying the decree and judgment of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam passed in O.S.No.186 of 1999 on 09.04.2002. 2. The Cross Objection is filed praying to allow the Cross Objection with costs through out by dismissing the suit O.S.No.186 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam. 3. The matters were referred for mediation to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras, by the order of this Court, dated 13.02.2014. 4. A communication, dated 04.03.2014, of the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras, has been received, enclosing a copy of the Mediation Report, dated 27.02.2014, stating that the matters have been settled between the parties concerned, as per the terms cited in the Mediation Agreement, dated 27.02.2014. 5. As the parties have arrived at a settlement, in terms of the Mediation Agreement, dated 27.02.2014, both the Second Appeal and Cross Objection are listed for passing orders. 6. The Mediation Agreement, dated 27.02.2014, signed by the parties, as well as their respective counsels, reads as follows:- "Both sides, out of their own volition and without any pressure or coercion from any side have agreed as follows: 1. The vacant space in between the two buildings one that of the Appellant/Plaintiff (which is about 200 years old) and the other that of the Respondent/Defendant (which is recently built up) measuring 42 inches North to South on the Eastern side (Pudavaikadai Street) and in the rear measuring 10 inches North to South on the Western side shall be maintained by both the parties as such and both the parties agree that the said vacant space can be used by them for upkeep and maintenance of their respective buildings. 2. The Respondent/Defendant undertakes to put up a compound wall at her cost or such other demarcation wall North of the Thai wall in the backyard (Kollai) and it is understood that the Thai Suvar mentioned above belongs to the Appellant/Plaintiff and the gutter (Sallaram) belongs to the Respondent. 3. The parties agree that the wall across the Vacant site measuring about 10 inches at the end of the Respondent’s buildings need not be disturbed and shall be kept in tact." 7. 3. The parties agree that the wall across the Vacant site measuring about 10 inches at the end of the Respondent’s buildings need not be disturbed and shall be kept in tact." 7. In terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, which is recorded under the Mediation Agreement, dated 27.02.2014, both the Second Appeal and Cross Objection are disposed of. There shall be a Decree, in terms of the Mediation Agreement, dated 27.02.2014. The terms of the Mediation Agreement, dated 27.02.2014, shall form part of the record. No costs. The original documents filed by the Parties, in the Suit, shall be returned to them. The Parties are also entitled to refund of the entire court fee.