L.Srinivasan, v. S.Alamelu,(Died) W/O.Shanmugam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.09.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and M.P. No. 1 of 2015 L.Srinivasan ... Appellant Vs.

1.S.Alamelu (died) 2.P.Sundari 3.Valarmathi 4.Mathumathi 5.Lakshmi 6.Sangeetha .. Respondents (R3 to R6 who are the legal heirs of the deceased R1 are impleaded vide order of this Court dated 10.09.2024 made in C.M.P.No.4941 of 2021) PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2014 made in A.S.No.71 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Court, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2012 made in O.S.No.318 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Salem.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Nalliyappan For R3 to R6 : Mr.D.Shivakumar

J U D G M E N T

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it is submitted by both the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 that the appellant and the respondent 3 to 6 have entered into an amicable settlement and also filed a compromise memo to that effect.

2.

Recording the same, the Second Appeal is disposed of and decreed in terms of the compromise entered between the parties. This Court had examined the parties who have appeared in person and their respective counsels identified the parties to ensure that they are the appellant and contesting respondents 3 to 6. The 1st respondent is no more and her legal heirs are impleaded as respondents 3 to 6 and the 2nd respondent has sold the property in the name of the appellant. Therefore, the consent of the 2nd respondent does not arise for settlement between the parties. The memo of compromise shall form part of the decree. No costs.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 10.09.2024 Index :Yes/No (2/2) gsa To 1.The Principal District Judge, Salem.

2.The II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem.

N.SENTHILKUMAR , J.

Gsa 10.09.2024 (2/2)