JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree, dated 23.03.2007, made in A.S.No.98 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, modifying the judgment and decree, dated 15.09.2006, made in O.S.No.122 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam.) 1. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/1st defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court in A.S.No.98 of 2006, whereby and where under the judgment and decree, dated 15.09.2006, passed in O.S.No.122 of 2003 by the trial Court is modified. 2. The respondents 1 to 3 herein as plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.122 of 2003 seeking to declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to 3/5th share in the suit 'A' schedule and 'D' schedule properties and 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant are each entitled to half share in the suit 'B' and 'C' schedule properties and to pass a preliminary decree in respect of the plaintiffs' share in the suit property by metes and bounds and also to appoint a Commissioner to divide the properties by metes and bounds. The respondents 1 to 3 / plaintiffs also prayed to direct the 1st defendant to render true and proper accounts for the income and expenditure of the suit properties. The Trial Court, after trial, passed the preliminary decree, which reads as follows: “1. The plaintiffs are entitled to 3/5th share in Aschedule items 1 to 5 and punjai items 1 to 8 and 3/5th share in half-share of suit described D-schedule door no.5 property. 2. The first plaintiff is entitled to half-share in suit described B-schedule properties and half-share in suit described C-schedule properties. 3. The fourth defendant is entitled to half-share in suit described D-schedule door no.5. 4. The plaintiffs are entitled to the accounts for the three years immediately preceding the date of filing the suit from and out of the suit described properties”. 3. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the appellant as well as the 7th respondent herein filed A.S.No.98 of 2006 before the first appellate Court. 4. The plaintiffs are entitled to the accounts for the three years immediately preceding the date of filing the suit from and out of the suit described properties”. 3. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the appellant as well as the 7th respondent herein filed A.S.No.98 of 2006 before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal by partly setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court with regard to suit 'A', 'C' and 'D' schedule properties and with regard to rendition of accounts, and confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court with regard to suit 'B' schedule properties, thereby modified the decree to the following effect: “1. The 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant are each entitled to 6/15th share and plaintiffs 2, 3 and 2nd defendant are each entitled to 1/15th share in the suit 'A' schedule properties. 2. The plaintiffs and defendants are each entitled to 1/5th share in suit 'C' schedule properties. 3. The 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant are each entitled to 6/45th share; plaintiffs 2, 3 and 2nd defendant are each entitled to 1/45th share; 4th defendant is entitled to 15/45th share and 5th defendant is entitled to 3/45th share in the suit 'D' schedule properties bearing door No.5 as described in the plaint; 4. The plaintiffs can work out their remedy for mesne profits by filing a separate proceedings under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC. 5. The plaintiffs shall include other surviving legal heirs of late Sundaresam Pillai, viz., Suseela, Kannan, Kalarani and Soundaranayaki in the Final Decree Proceedings for allotment of their respective share of 3/45 each in suit 'D' schedule property alone on payment of necessary court fee, if they so desire for the purpose of complete adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings”. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the appellant / 1st defendant has filed this second appeal. 4. When the matter came up for hearing on 03.10.2019, the learned counsel appearing for both sides submitted that the 2nd respondent herein/2nd plaintiff died during the pendency of this appeal and her legal heirs are the appellant/1st defendant, the 1st and 3rd respondents/1st and 3rd plaintiffs and that they are already on record and the same may be recorded. 4. When the matter came up for hearing on 03.10.2019, the learned counsel appearing for both sides submitted that the 2nd respondent herein/2nd plaintiff died during the pendency of this appeal and her legal heirs are the appellant/1st defendant, the 1st and 3rd respondents/1st and 3rd plaintiffs and that they are already on record and the same may be recorded. They would further submit that both the appellant as well as the first and third respondents herein have entered into terms of compromise and the matter has been settled between them. To that effect, they have also filed terms of compromise, dated 29.08.2019, signed by both the parties as well as their respective counsel. As per the terms of compromise, dated 29.08.2019, the following settlement has been arrived at between the parties: “(1) Whereas one Nataraja pillai died leaving behind five legal heirs viz., the plaintiffs 1 to 3, 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant. (2) Whereas the 1st plaintiff, the 3rd plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the sons and daughter born to late Nataraja pillai through his 2nd wife viz., the 2nd plaintiff herein. (3) Whereas the 2nd defendant is the daughter of late Nataraja Pillai through his deceased 1st wife. (4) Whereas the 2nd defendant Mrs.Marimuthu daughter of Nataraja pillai died during the pendency of the above appeal. (5) Whereas the husband Mrs.Marimuthu/Thangavel pillai also died leaving behind Mrs.Shanthi. (6) Whereas Mrs.Shanthi has been impleaded in the above appeal as 8th respondent. (7) Whereas Mrs.Shanthi is bedridden due to illness and is of advanced age. (8) Whereas Mrs.Shanthi has engaged her Advocate and gave special vakalat to compromise the matter. (9) Whereas Mrs.Shanthi does not claim any right or title and has given up her right title and interest in the suit properties. (10) Whereas the 2nd plaintiff died during the pendency of the appeal and her legal heirs viz. 1st plaintiff, 3rd plaintiff and 1st defendant are already on record. (11) Whereas the 3rd plaintiff/Mrs.Rajam does not claim any right and she has given up her right title and interest in the suit properties. (12) Whereas the 3rd defendant/Thiru Aururan Sugar Mills used to purchase the sugar cane cultivated in the suit properties and was added as formal party in the suit. 1.3.6.7.8. (13) Whereas late Nataraja pillai, Sundaresam pillai and Rajagopala pillai are brothers. (14) Whereas defendants 4 and 5 are husband and wife. (12) Whereas the 3rd defendant/Thiru Aururan Sugar Mills used to purchase the sugar cane cultivated in the suit properties and was added as formal party in the suit. 1.3.6.7.8. (13) Whereas late Nataraja pillai, Sundaresam pillai and Rajagopala pillai are brothers. (14) Whereas defendants 4 and 5 are husband and wife. (15) Whereas the 4th defendant is the daughter and legal heir of late Rajagopala pillai and the 5th defendant is the grandson of late Sundaresam pillai. (16) Whereas the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 in the appeal filed suit for partition claiming 3/5th share in the suit properties. (17) Whereas the trial court has granted decree to the plaintiffs. (18) Whereas the defendants 1 and 5 filed appeal in A.S.No.98/2006 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thanjavur. (19) Whereas the appellate court has modified the decree of trial Court. (20) Whereas the well wishers and close relatives have advised the parties to compromise the matter to avoid further litigation. (21) Whereas the 1st defendant accepts the decree and judgment passed by the Principal District Court, Thanjavur in A.S.No.98/2006 dated 23-3-2007 in respect of Door No.5 in 'D' schedule of property and he prays that the appeal may be dismissed in respect of Door No.5 in 'D' schedule property. (22) Whereas the 1st defendant has given up relief in the appeal as against the defendants 4 and 5 / respondents 6 and 7 in the appeal and they may be deleted from the array of parties. (23) Whereas the 1st defendant is permitted to withdraw the sale price of sugarcane of Rs.45,000/- deposited with the 3rd respondent. (24) Whereas the 3rd defendant may be directed to disburse the sale price of sugarcane of Rs.45,000/- to the 1st defendant forthwith. (25) Whereas the 1st plaintiff is giving Rs. 1,50,000/- to the 1st defendant by way of D.D. for the Bore well, Motor, Motor pump, Motor room and Electric connection etc. available in the lands allotted to him in S.No.74/2, Sannapuram village, Kumbakonam Taluk. (26) Whereas the 1st plaintiff is giving Rs.50,000/- by way of D.D. to the 1st defendant for the amount borrowed by him from 1st defendant for his son's educational expenses. available in the lands allotted to him in S.No.74/2, Sannapuram village, Kumbakonam Taluk. (26) Whereas the 1st plaintiff is giving Rs.50,000/- by way of D.D. to the 1st defendant for the amount borrowed by him from 1st defendant for his son's educational expenses. (27) Whereas the 1st plaintiff has given up his 7.5/45th share in Door No.5 in 'D' schedule in favour of his brother 1st defendant and instead the 1st plaintiff was allotted share in Door No.6 in 'D' schedule property. (28) Whereas the 1st plaintiff is now allotted and given possession of the extent mentioned in Door No.6 of 'D' schedule described as 'ALLOTTED PORTION'. However if within 6 months, from the date of this compromise the younger son of 1st defendant viz., S.Prabakar executes a registered release deed or settlement deed in favour of 1st plaintiff in respect of the portion mentioned as 'PROPOSED PORTION' and has given possession thereof to the 1st plaintiff, the 1st plaintiff would give up his right, title interest in favour of the 1st defendant or his nominee in respect of the property allotted to the 1st plaintiff in Door No.6 in schedule 'D' property mentioned as 'ALLOTTED PORTION'. (29) Whereas the parties have compromised their issue agreed for passing of final decree and judgment as detailed hereunder and confirm having taking possession of items allotted. (30) The parties to the compromise agree that the memorandum of compromise be attached to the decree in the above appeal”. 5. Though the appellant has signed in the memo of compromise, on that day, the appellant expressed his displeasure over the issue with regard to assessment of tax in his name. Hence, this Court directed both the parties to settle the issue amicably and granted further time to the parties. 6. It is seen that in the terms of compromise memo itself, it is stated that the 2nd respondent / 2nd plaintiff died and her legal heirs viz., the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff, 3rd respondent/3rd plaintiff and the appellant/1st defendant are already on record. Considering the above, the death of the 2nd respondent / 2nd plaintiff is hereby recorded and the appellant/1st defendant, the 1st respondent/ 1st plaintiff and the 3rd respondent/3rd plaintiff are hereby recorded as LRs of the deceased 2nd respondent/2nd plaintiff. 7. Considering the above, the death of the 2nd respondent / 2nd plaintiff is hereby recorded and the appellant/1st defendant, the 1st respondent/ 1st plaintiff and the 3rd respondent/3rd plaintiff are hereby recorded as LRs of the deceased 2nd respondent/2nd plaintiff. 7. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 3 & 8 submitted that the first respondent has already sent two demand drafts for Rs.2 lakhs and the same was received by the appellant on 10.11.2019. He would further submit that the first respondent has already sent a registered letter to Thirunageswaram Panchayat Board stating that he has “No objection” for assessing tax in the name of the appellant for the house. The first respondent has also withdrew the complaint dated 26.03.2019 lodged on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruneelakudi Police Station, Thanjavur District, against the appellant. 8. The appellant, who appeared in person, before this Court today submitted that he agrees with the terms of compromise and that he has also received the demand drafts submitted by the first respondent. However, he requested this Court to direct the Thirunageswaram Panchayat to dispose of his application for assessment of tax in his name in respect of the house property at the earliest point of time. 9. Recording the above submission, this second appeal is allowed in terms of the Joint Compromise Memo dated 29.08.2019. The Joint Compromise Memo shall form part and parcel of the judgment and decree. Both the parties are directed to adhere to the terms of compromise in letter and spirit. It is needless to say that Thirunageswaram Panchayat is not a party to this matter and therefore, this Court cannot issue any direction to it. However, this Court hopes that the application for assessment in the name of the appellant will be considered by the said Panchayat on merits at the earliest point of time. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.