Disposed¶29

Thomas Gousik v. Alphonse

Madras HC11 Aug 2025SA(MD)/353/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Thomas Gousik v. Alphonse | S.A.(MD)No.353 of 2018 & C.M.P.(MD)No.10105 of 2018 | Madurai Bench of Madras High Court | 11.08.2025 | Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete | Second appeal against first-appellate decree (A.S. No. 132 of 2017, Subordinate Judge, Thiruchendur) that modified the decree in O.S. No. 30 of 2010 (District Munsif, Sathankulam) | disposed of on Memorandum of Compromise dated 11.08.2025 | no costs | connected miscellaneous petition closed | keywords: compromise, memorandum of compromise, second appeal, property, temporary injunction, Sattankulam, Thiruchendur, Tirunelveli, Thoothukudi.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal disposed of in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of Compromise dated 11.08.2025; the compromise memo forms part and parcel of the decree; no order as to costs; connected C.M.P.(MD)No.10105 of 2018 closed.

Thomas Gousik Vs Alphonse — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2018 in A.S. No. 132 of 2017, which modified the decree in O.S. No. 30 of 2010, should be set aside by allowing the second appeal (inferred from the prayer; the court ultimately adjudicated no substantive issue, disposing of the appeal by compromise).

¶11

Court's answer

Since a Memorandum of Compromise dated 11.08.2025, duly signed by the parties and their respective counsel, was filed and its contents were explained to and acknowledged by the parties, the second appeal is disposed of in accordance with the terms of the compromise memo.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The Memorandum of Compromise shall form part and parcel of the decree; there shall be no order as to costs; consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.(MD)No.10105 of 2018) is closed.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

S.A.(MD)No.353 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD)No.10105 of 2018, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete), decided 11.08.2025. Second appeal by Thomas Gousik seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2018 in A.S. No. 132 of 2017 (Subordinate Judge, Thiruchendur), which had modified the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2013 in O.S. No. 30 of 2010 (District Munsif, Sathankulam); the connected C.M.P. sought temporary injunction against further construction on Schedule 4 property (forming part of Schedule 3) pending disposal. Before judgment, the parties filed a Memorandum of Compromise dated 11.08.2025 signed by both parties and their counsel; the court recorded that its contents were explained to and understood by the parties. Held: the second appeal is disposed of in accordance with the terms of the compromise memo, which forms part and parcel of the decree; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. No substantive legal issue adjudicated; no precedent cited or relied upon.

¶1

S.A.(MD)No.353 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE

¶6

S.A.(MD)No.353 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD)No.10105 of 2018

¶7

Thomas Gousik, S/o.Anthonisamy, No.7/234-A, Dharmarajapuram Village, Palayanhkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ... Appellant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Alphonse, S/o.Rajamani Nadar,. N0.3/38E, Komaneri Road, South Peikulam, . Srivenkatesapuram Village, Sattankulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER in S.A:

¶11

The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 Cr.P.C., to set aside the decree and the judgment dated 03.07.2018 rendered in A.S.No.l32 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruchendur, modifying the decree and the judgment dated 26.03.2013 rendered in O.S.No.30 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif, Sathankulam, by allowing the Second Appeal and to grant such other relief or reliefs that this

¶12

1/5

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

S.A.(MD)No.353 of 2018

¶15

Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

¶16

PRAYER in C.M.P.:

¶17

To pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent, his men, agent, servant or any one claiming on his behalf from in any way put up any further or other construction, or alter the nature of the property pertaining to the Schedule 4 forming part of schedule 3 property being the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.30 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif, Sattankulam, pening disposal of the above Second Appeal and thus render justice.

¶18

For Appellant : Mrs.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya, Advocate

¶19

For Respondent : Mr.M.P.Senthil, Advocate

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Heard.

¶22

This Second Appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated

¶23

03.07.2018 in A.S. No. 132 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruchendur, which modified the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2013 in O.S. No. 30 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathankulam.

¶24

2/5

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

S.A.(MD)No.353 of 2018

¶27

Both learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent are present. The parties are also present in Court. A Memorandum of Compromise, dated 11.08.2025 duly signed by the parties and their respective counsel, has been filed.

¶28

The contents of the Memorandum of Compromise have been explained to the parties and acknowledged that they have understood the terms in full and that they have entered into the compromise.

¶29

In view of the compromise memo filed, the second appeal is disposed of in accordance with the terms of the compromise memo. The Memorandum of Compromise shall form part and parcel of this decree. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

NCC : Yes / No 11.08.2025 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶31

¶32

3/5

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

S.A.(MD)No.353 of 2018

¶35

¶36