N.P.Kumar, v. Govindaraji
Case brief
What is this about?
The court allowed a second appeal based on a filed compromise memo. The underlying suit and connected miscellaneous petition were disposed of in terms of the compromise to form part of the decree.
What did the court decide?
The Second Appeal, Suit O.S.No.129 of 2001, and Connected MP are disposed of and the Compromise Memo forms part of the decree.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.08.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.BASKARAN
Second Appeal No.1240 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2006
1.N.P.Kumar 2.P.Venkateswaralu .. Appellants/Plaintiffs Vs. 1.Govindaraji 2.Arul .. Respondents/Defendants Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.06.2006 made in A.S.No.22 of 2004 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Tindivanam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2003 made in O.S.No.129 of 2001 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, Senior counsel for Mr.M.Sriram For Respondents: Mr.G.Justin.
J U D G M E N T
Both parties are present before the court with their respective counsel. Compromise Memo dated 23 August, 2017 is filed. The contents of the memo has been explained to the parties and they agreed and admitted the contents. The compromise memo filed by the appellants and the respondents signed by the parties and their respective counsel is recorded. In such circumstances, the Second Appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise memo. The compromise memo will form part of the decree. Consequently, the Suit in O.S.No.129 of 2001 is disposed of in terms of the compromise memo. No costs. Connected MP is closed.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
N.P.Kumar
- appellant
P.Venkateswaralu
- respondent
Govindaraji
- respondent
Arul
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court