Case Note & Summary
The two Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India were filed against the common judgment and decree dated 11.12.2024 in O.S. Nos.101 and 102 of 2022 passed by the IV Additional District Court, Udumalpet. The suits were originally filed by the first respondents for declaration of their right in properties purchased from the brothers of a family, along with consequential reliefs of permanent injunction. The property originally belonged to one Muthusamy Naicker and was subject to a partition in 1988 among his sons, excluding the daughters. A family arrangement in 1989 was followed. One daughter filed a partition suit in 2010 claiming share in the mother's share, which was dismissed. Later, that daughter obtained release of shares of other daughters and settled the property in favour of her husband, who sold it to a third party, from whom the revision petitioner purchased. Meanwhile, the sons claimed a share in the mother's property and executed sale deeds for 8 acres each to close relatives (brother-in-law and son-in-law), who filed the suits. The grievance of the revision petitioner was that the suits were decreed by the trial court solely on the basis of an alleged settlement produced by the plaintiff's counsel, without hearing any other parties or verifying the genuineness of the compromise. The trial court had merely recorded that a compromise was recorded in W.P. Nos.3441 and 3445 of 2022 and decreed the suits accordingly. The revision petitioner argued that the decree violated Order XXIII CPC, the writ court had only recorded a submission of compromise without any settlement memo, and that the sons had no right after admitting the daughters' entitlement, making the sale deeds sham. The contesting first respondent contended that the compromise was acted upon with mutual benefit and that board resolutions authorized the representative. The sixth respondent adopted the petitioner's arguments, asserting no hearing and lack of authority. The judgment text provided ends after recording submissions; no decision, analysis, or order is included, so the final outcome and ratio are unknown.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree passed in O.S. Nos.101 and 102 of 2022 by the IV Additional District Court, Udumalpet, recording a settlement and decreeing the suits, was valid and in accordance with law under Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly when other parties were not heard and the composition of the compromise was not verified.
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (03) 94
CRP. Nos.6203 & 6211 of 2025 and CMP. Nos.30579, 30580, 30613 & 30616 of 2025
Mr.Avinash Wadhwani, Mr.M.Mahamani, Mr.K.Selvaraj, Mr.PA.Sai Govindaraja, Mr.G.Murugan, Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi, Mr.G.V.Mohan Kumar, Mr.A.Anandan
M/s.Prema Engineering, represented by its Proprietor K.S.Nirmal
1. V.Vengidathi (CRP 6203/2025) / Vasanthakumar (CRP 6211/2025); 2. Radhakrishan; 3. Krishanveni; 4. Muthammal; 5. Neelavathi; 6. M/s.Safvolt Switchgears Private Limited; 7. M/s.Sharp Liqtech (Velumanibabu); 8. M/s.Sharp Liqtech (Rajesh); 9. M/s.Poongodhai Textile Mills; 10. M/s.Allied Foundry; 11. M/s.MJP. Enterprises Private Limited; 12. M/s. Bright Foundries Coimbatore Private Limited; 13. M/s.Ferromax Foundries India Private Limited; 14. M/s.Shri Santhosh Meenakshi Textiles Private Limited; 15. Sub Registrar, Udumalpet; 16. District Registrar, Tiruppur; 17. District Collector, Tiruppur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging decrees passed in two suits for declaration and permanent injunction based on an alleged compromise.
Remedy Sought
Setting aside the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2024 in O.S. Nos.101 and 102 of 2022 by the IV Additional District Court, Udumalpet.
Filing Reason
The decrees were passed recording a settlement without hearing all parties, without verification of genuineness, and in violation of Order XXIII CPC.
Previous Decisions
In O.S. Nos.101 and 102 of 2022, trial court decreed the suits on 11.12.2024 relying on a compromise stated to have been recorded in W.P. Nos.3441 and 3445 of 2022 closed on 26.09.2022.
Issues
Whether the trial court could validly decree the suits under Order XXIII CPC merely on the basis of a submission of compromise without a properly filed compromise memo and without hearing all necessary parties?
Whether the decrees are liable to be set aside under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that no settlement memo was filed before the writ court, the decree was passed ex-parte without verifying genuineness, and the sons had admitted daughters' rights and created sham sale deeds to defeat them, thus the plaints should be rejected straightaway.
Respondent 1 argued that the compromise was acted upon, benefits were exchanged, board resolutions authorized the representative, and no error warranted interference under Article 227.
Sixth respondent adopted petitioner's arguments and additionally argued that their counsel was not heard, board resolutions did not authorize settlement, and the power of attorney was unregistered and invalid.
Judgment Excerpts
The grievance of the revision petitioner is that the said suits filed by the first respondent in these revision petitions respectively, were erroneously decreed by the District Court, based on an alleged settlement terms produced by the plaintiff's Counsel, without even verifying its genuineness and validity.
This Court has only recorded the fact that the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners submitted that the matter has been compromised between the writ petitioner and private respondent No.4 and therefore, recording the said submissions, the writ petitions were closed.
Procedural History
The property originally belonged to Muthusamy Naicker. A partition deed in 1988 excluded daughters; a family arrangement in 1989 followed. One daughter filed suit in 2010 for share, dismissed. She later obtained release of other daughters' shares and settled in husband's name; eventual purchaser is revision petitioner. O.S. No.188 of 2004 was filed by a daughter for partition with claim that mother's property was given to daughters. Meanwhile, sons claimed share and executed sale deeds for 16 acres to close relatives, who filed O.S. Nos.101 and 102 of 2022. The suits were decreed on 11.12.2024 based on a compromise reportedly reached in W.P. Nos.3441 and 3445 of 2022. Revision petitions under Article 227 were filed against this decree. Hearing concluded and order reserved.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXIII
