Sait@Sethu v. Balachandar
Case brief
What is this about?
The Madurai Bench allowed a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC after parties filed and affirmed a compromise memorandum. The lower court judgments were set aside and replaced by a compromise decree. Parties bear own costs.
What did the court decide?
Impugned judgments and decree set aside; substitute replacement by compromise decree; parties to bear own costs.
What the court decided
S.A.(MD) No.42 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.12.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
S.A.(MD) No.42 of 2017 and C.M.P(MD)No.1012 of 2017
Sait @ Sethu ... Appellant / plaintiff vs.
1.Balachander 2.Kumar ... Respondent 1 and 2 / Appellant / Defendant 3.Kamsla Thangaraju (Died) 4.Muthukamu 5.Kumar 6.Valampal 7.Jayabal @ Mohammed Yusuf ... Respondents 3 to 7
(R6 and 7 are brought on record vide Court order dated 17.12.2019) in CMP(MD)No.9935/19 in SA(MD)No.42/2017
PRAYER : This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2011 made in A.S.No.170 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2009 made in O.S.No.274 of 1997 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Lalgudi.
For Appellant : MrS.J.Maria Roseline For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Siddharathan For R3 to R7 : Mr.T.Balasubramanian
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal should be allowed in terms of a compromise memo filed by the parties and affirmed in Court.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Sait @ Sethu
- respondent
Balachander
- respondent
Kumar
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court