The High Court of Madras allowed the Second Appeal based on a settlement letter submitted by respondents, resulting in the setting aside of lower court judgments and decrees in the underlying civil dispute.
Second appeal allowed; judgment and decree of the First Additional District Judge and Subordinate Judge set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.11.2018 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM S.A.No.2194 of 2002 and C.M.P.No.19115 of 2002
1.C.S.Balakandan(Died) 2.C.S.Arumugham(Died) 3.Thedha Ammal 4.C.S.Murugesan 5.C.S.Parameswaran 6.S.Siddha @ Palaniammal 7.Mallika @ Srimathy 8.Uma 9.B.Gopalakrishnan 10.B.Sathiyanathan 11.B.Karthikeyan (Appellants 9 to 11 brought on record as LRS of the deceased 1st appellant viz., C.S.Balakandan vide order dated 26.07.2018 in C.M.P.No.12789 to 12791/2018 in S.A.No.2194/2002) 12.A.Indira 13.S.A.Nirmala 14.A.Somasundara Raja 15.A.Vinodh (Appellants 12 to 15 brought on record as LRS of the deceased 2nd appellant viz., C.S.Arumugham vide order of Court dated 26.07.2018 in C.M.P.No.12788, 12792 & 12793/2018 in S.A.No.2194/2002) ..Appellants Vs. 1.T.Rangasamy(Died) 2.R.Jagadeesan 3.R.Saravanan 4.R.Usha ..Respondents R2 to 4 are recorded as LRS of the decd.R1 vide order dated 13.11.2018 in SA.2194/02.
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the decree and judgment dated 24.07.2002 of the learned First Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial magistrate, Coimbatore, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dismissing the First Appeal No.57/2001 Preferred against
the decree and judgment dated 19.12.1996 of the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in O.S.No.567 of 1988.
For Appellants Mr.V.Raghupathi
For Respondents : Mr.T.R.Rajaraman for R1 to R4
JUDGMENT
The respective learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as the respondents jointly made a submission that the issues between the parties to the present lis had been settled .
2.The respondents had sent a letter to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, stating that they have no objection for allowing the Second Appeal in view of the settlement arrived between the parties. Such a letter submitted in order to restore the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.567/1988. In view of the settlement arrived between the parties and further based on the letter submitted before this Court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, this Court is inclined to allow the Second Appeal.The memo filed by the appellants stating that the 1st Respondent MR.T.Rangaswamy has died is accepted.
3.Accordingly, the judgment and the decree passed in A.S.No.57 of 2001 dated 24.07.2002 by the First Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial magistrate, Coimbatore and the judgment and decree in O.S.No.567/1988 dated 19.12.1996 passed by the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore are both set aside.
4.Accordingly, the second appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kak To
1.The First Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial magistrate, Coimbatore.
2.The III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
Copy To:The Section Officer VR Section, High Court Madras.
+1cc to Mr.V.Raghupathi , Advocate SR.No. 77302 +1cc to Mr.T.R.Rajaraman , Advocate SR.No. 77535 SA.No.2194 of 2002
A.SK(11/06/2019)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Second Appeal should be allowed in light of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.S. Balakandan and others
T.Rangasamy and others
S.M. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
