IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.01.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN S.A.No.1594 of 1992 and C.M.P.No.799 of 2008 1.Perumal (died) 2.Tmt.Krishnammal 3.Sampoorani 4.Vathanamathi 5.Chandrasekar 6.Selvakumar ... Appellants (Appellants 2 to 6 are brought on record as Legal Representatives of the deceased sole appellant and RR4 and 5 are brought on record as Legal Representatives of the deceased 1st respondent and also recorded the 2nd respondent as legal representatives of the deceased 1st respondent vide order of Court dated 12.12.2006 made in C.M.P.Nos.2820 to 2825 of 2003) ...Versus... 1.M.Venkatappan (died) 2.V.Kannan 3.Ponnusamy 4.V.Thirupathi 5.Mani (died) 6.Valarmathi 7.Unnamed child,S/o.Mani (RR6 and 7 are brought on record as legal representatives of deceased 5th respondent and 6th respondent is appointed as guardian of the 7th respondent and name of the R4 amended Thirupathi instead of Chinnathambi vide order of Court dated 12.12.2006 made in C.M.P.Nos.10547 to 10551 of 2003) ... Respondents PRAYER:This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 16.03.1992 in A.S.No.44 of 1990 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Krishnagiri in modifying the judgment and decree dated 28.09.1988 made in O.S.No.1134 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Krishnagiri. For Appellants :: Mr.P.Srinivas For R2 and R3 :: Mr.T.R.Rajaraman J U D G M E N T The plaintiff in O.S.No.1134 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri is the appellant herein. The suit had been filed for a declaration of title and for Permanent Injunction with respect to the suit property. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-M.Perumal against the three defendants viz., Ponnusamy, Venkatappan and Kannan. It had been stated in the plaint that the suit property was in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff-Perumal and the first and second defendants Ponnusamy and Venkatappan are brothers. There was a partition among them on 06.04.1964. In accordance with the partition, the first item of property was allotted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been in continuous enjoyment of the same. The father of the plaintiff was allotted another property. It was agreed that on the demise of the father, that property would be taken by the plaintiff and the first defendant. The father of the plaintiff died on 15.08.1964. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the first defendant divided that particular property. They were in joint possession and enjoyment from 1964 till 1973. Thereafter, in a partition, the second item of suit property was allotted to the plaintiff. It was claimed that the second and third defendants have acquired title of the property. Since the defendants interfered with the possession of the plaintiff, necessity arose to institute the suit seeking declaration of title and protection of possession. 2. The defendants filed a written statement in which they claimed that the plaintiff was not entitled to the suit property. It was also claimed that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. It was admitted, however, the first item of suit property was allotted to the plaintiff. It was stated that after partition, the plaintiff sold 2.30 acres of land. The plaintiff was in possession of 45 cents alone. It was denied that the plaintiff was entitled to 85 cents in the first item of suit property. It was also denied that the property of the father should be taken jointly by the plaintiff and the first defendant. It was also denied that the property was divided into two parts. It was claimed to have been enjoyed in common and also claimed that the second defendant was not a party to the partition between the plaintiff and the first defendant. It was also stated that the first defendant was a minor on 22.08.1973. It was claimed that the first, second defendants were also entitled to a share in the second item of suit property along with the plaintiff. 3. The learned District Munsif, Krishnagiri framed necessary issues and took up the case for trial. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and another witness Perumal was examined as P.W.2. The second defendant was examined as D.W.1 and another witness Ramasamy was examined as D.W.2. The plaintiffs marked Exhibits A1 to A3. Exhibit A1 is the Partition Deed between the plaintiff and the first defendant dated 22.08.1973. Exhibit A2 is the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of Govindammal dated 18.10.1984. Exhibit A3 series are Adangal extract pertaining to Fasli 1383 to 1392. The defendants marked Exhibits B1 to B12. These included copies of the partition deed dated 06.04.1964, sale deeds as Exhibits B4 to B9 and Voters Identity Card as Exhibits B11 and B12. 4. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned District Munsif, Krishnagiri decreed the suit as prayed for. 5. Challenging that judgment and decree, the second and third defendants filed A.S.No.44 of 1990. This came up before the Sub Court, Krishnagiri. By Judgment dated 16.03.1992, the learned Sub Judge framed necessary points for consideration and re-appreciated the evidence and modified the decree of the trial Court and granted declaration of title with respect to 48 cents in Item No.I of the suit property and dismissed the suit with respect to Item No.II of the suit property. It must be mentioned that Item No.I of the suit property had been described as follows:- In Dharmapuri District, Krishnagiri Taluk, Oppathavadi taraf, Athimarathupalli Village:- In S.No.521/1 dry 0.85 acres assessment 0.80 paise East of S.No.519; South of Road and North of defendant No.2's land and West of the plaintiff's land and a pungam tree thereon. 2. S.No.521/2 East of the plaintiff's property; South of defendant's land West of road and North of Guddakall's land in the middle 1.53 acres Asst Rs.1.45. This is made up of two bits of properties of 0.66 and 0.87 cents and the coconut trees thereon and also 1/2 right in the well in it. 6. Challenging the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff had filed the present Second Appeal. 7. The Second Appeal had been admitted on the following Substantial Question of Law:- Is not the 2nd defendant estopped by conduct and attestation from claiming right over the suit property allotted to the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 initially and later partitioned between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in 1973 as per the family and panchayat arrangement? 8. Pending the Second Appeal, the plaintiff/appellant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 2 to 6. The first respondent also died and his legal representatives were brought on record as 4th and 5th respondents. The 5th respondent also died and the 6th and 7th respondents were brought on record. The 7th respondent is a minor represented by his mother 6th respondent. 9. Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant presented before this Court, a joint memo of compromise stating that the appellants and the respondents have agreed to compromise the disputes between them and had already reduced the terms of compromise by a deed dated 11.07.2008. This compromise had not been signed all the parties to the appeal. It had been signed by the 2nd appellant-Sampoorani, third appellant- Vathanamathi and the fourth appellant-Chandrasekar. It had also been signed by the first respondent-Kannan, the third respondent-Thirupathi and the fifth respondent-Valarmathi. Independently, the 5th respondent-Valarmathi also filed an affidavit stating that she is representing the minor 6th respondent. It was stated in the affidavit that the compromise would also benefit the minor and she has no adverse interest as against the minor. 10. This compromise memo was presented before this Court. But, it has not been signed by the learned counsel for the respondents, since it was stated that they did not have any instructions. However, the parties who signed the compromise memo namely the 5th appellant-Chandrasekar and the 2nd respondent-Kannan had appeared before this Court. A memo had also been filed that the appellant-Krishnammal is died, but that since the legal representatives are already on record. 11. The appeal has been pending from the year 1992. It emanates from the suit of the year 1981. The parties have been litigating for the past 38 years. It is only proper that some quietus is given to the issues which they had raised in the Original Suit and in the Appellate Forum. Even though, the Court is conscious that all the parties have not signed the agreement, still, the 5th appellant-Chandrasekar and the second respondent- Kannan effectively represented the contesting families and informed the Court that they had settled the issues and nothing further survives in the appeal. Since the counsel for the respondent not signed the compromise memo, it cannot form part of the decree. However, the compromise memo as reduced, is reflected in this judgment. 12. In the compromise memo, it had been agreed as follows:- Whereas the Petitioners/Appellants above named are the Appellants in the Second Appeal arising out of O.S.No.1134 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri and A.S.No.44 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Judge, Krishnagiri. Whereas the Suit in O.S.No.1134 of 1981 was decreed in full and the same was partly reversed in A.S.No.44 of 1990. Whereas the parties herein have agreed to compromise the dispute between them and have already reduced the same in writing by a Deed dated 11.07.2008 and are submitting this memo of compromise before this Honourable Court for recording the said compromise and passing a decree accordingly. The parties above named are filing this memo of Compromise jointly agreeing that the Respondents have no claim to the Schedule mentioned properties that are the suit schedule properties and that the Appellants are entitled to the said properties without any let or hindrance from the respondents and their successors in title or any one claiming under them. 13. I hold that there cannot be any bar in the Court recording the memo of compromise in the judgment and this Second Appeal is disposed of in terms of the said compromise memo. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. *The Xerox copy of the Joint Memo of Compromise enclosed Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Subordinate Judge of Krishnagiri. 2. The District Munsif of Krishnagiri. 3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai. +1cc to M/s.P.Srinivas, Advocate Sr.8145 S.A.No.1594 of 1992 and C.M.P.No.799 of 2008 cnr[co] srg 13/09/2019