Finance Lender’s 24-Cent Land Mortgage Suit Ends In Settlement Decree At Madras HC

The plaintiff brought a suit seeking recovery of ₹1,51,25,000, interest, and enforcement of a mortgage, with claims against the defendants as guarantors and, in part, against the estate of the deceased K. Gunasekaran.

The parties were referred to mediation and entered into a written settlement agreement dated 30 October 2026. The agreement was placed before the Court, and counsel for both sides affirmed the settlement; an authorised representative of the defendants participated by video-conference.

The judgment does not cite any statute, precedent, or contested legal doctrine as the basis for its decision. It records the parties’ written settlement and decrees the suit in accordance with that agreement.

The plaint’s reference to Order IV Rule 1 and Order XXXVII Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules appears in the prayer, not as a rule discussed or applied in the Court’s reasoning.

The Court had the written settlement agreement before it and noted that counsel for both parties affirmed the settlement, with the defendants’ authorised representative also present by video-conference.

On that basis, it accepted the settlement and decreed the suit in its terms; it also directed the return of Exhibits P2 and P11 to the plaintiff’s counsel upon substitution with certified copies.

It directed that Exhibits P2 and P11 be returned to the plaintiff’s counsel after substitution with certified copies and ordered no costs.