P.Anthonysamy, And Another v. Mr.P.Devaraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE and C.S.No..11 of 2024
1. P.Anthonysamy, S/o Paramjothi, No.1, Village Street, Sozhingallur, Chennai 96.
2. Mr.John Selvaraj S/o.Paramjothi, No.23/38, Kannagi Nagar, Thuraipakkam, Chennai 600 097.
..Applicant(s) Vs Mr.P.Devaraj S/o.Paramjothi, No.7/8, 3rd Street, Santhosh Nagar, Lakshmipuram, Puthagaram, Chennai 600 099.
..Respondent(s) PRAYER: This petition filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. to rectify the survey number by substituting Survey No.79/12 in place of the wrongly mentioned Survey No.79/2, which was inadvertently and mistakenly stated in the Joint Compromise Memo and Decree. For Applicant(s):
Mr.I.Arockia Selvaraj For Respondent(s):
Mr.G.Murali
ORDER
This application has been filed to rectify the survey number by substituting Survey No.79/12 in place of the wrongly mentioned Survey No.79/2.
2.The learned counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs submits that the applicants/plaintiffs has filed a partition suit in C.S.No.11 of 2024 before this Court. The suit was referred to Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras on 05.06.2024. In the Mediation, the dispute was amicably settled and a joint compromise memo dated 05.08.2024 was entered into between the parties. Based on the said joint compromise memo, this Court, by Judgment dated 13.08.2024, decreed the suit in terms of the joint compromise memo.
3.The learned counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs further submits that in schedule of property mentioned in the joint compromise memo, the Survey No.79/12 has been wrongly stated as Survey.No.79/2 by the parties. Hence, the present application has been filed seeking rectification of the said typographical error in the joint compromise memo as well as in the decree.
4.The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant has no objection in allowing this application and has made an endorsement to that effect.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and no objection made by the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, this court is inclined to allow this application as the error is only a typographical error. Accordingly, this application is allowed as prayed for.
27-03-2026 mfa/sms Note:
(1) Parties are directed to make necessary correction in the joint compromise memo.
(2) Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendment in the decree and issue fresh copy of decree to the parties.
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
sms/mfa and C.S.No.11 of 2024 27-03-2026