A Civil Revision Petition filed to set aside a final decree resulting from a compromise was dismissed. The High Court held that the petitions were re-agitating a matter already settled with a final decree passed in accordance with a compromise memo.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
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.
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2274 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2274 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
1.A.Muthusamy
2.Banumathi ... Petitioners/Decree Holders/Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.Periyasami
2.Kuppayee
3.Chellammal
4.Pappathi @ Pavathal ... Respondents/Judgement Debtors/Defendants
th st st
5.Lakshmi ... 5 Respondent/1 Decree Holder/1 Plaintiff
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 CPC against the fair and decreetal Order dated 16.02.2015 made in E.P.No.115/2013 in O.S.No.270/2010 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge at Erode, Erode District.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Ashwin for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
For Respondent : Ms.J.Prithivi
for M/s.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran [R1 to R3] R4 & R5 (No appearance)
ORDER
1/4
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2274 of 2015
(Heard through video conferencing)
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the Order dated
16.02.2015 made in E.P.No.115/2013 in O.S.No.270/2010 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge at Erode, Erode District.
2. The plaintiffs are the petitioners herein.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the
compromise entered into between the parties, the western side of the property has been allotted to the plaintiffs and the eastern side of the property has been allotted to the defendants and to that effect, they have even filed a compromise memo.
The final Decree has been passed only in accordance with the compromise memo and the E.P. has been filed by requesting to measure the properties once again.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that even during
the compromise entered into between the parties, the respective share of the parties have been measured and the same issue need not be agitated once again.
5. It is seen from the records that the petitioners are re-agitating the matter
which has already been settled at rest and on which, the final Decree has been https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ passed. Hence, I find no merits in the Civil Revision Petition. 2/4
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2274 of 2015
In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Sni
To
1.I Additional Subordinate Judge at Erode,
Erode District.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
R.N.MANJULA,J.
Sni
3/4
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2274 of 2015
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2274 of 2015
16.06.2021
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Civil Revision Petition challenging a final ex-parte decree allowing re-measurement of settled property has merit.
Whether the lower court's findings that the matter was already settled via compromise memo required interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.Muthusamy & Anr
Periyasami & Ors
R.N. MANJULA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
