Nadaraja Rajendra v. Thevathasan Sritharan – SC APPEAL NO. 8/2016-2016

In the case between Nadaraja Rajendra (Plaintiff) and Thevathasan Sritharan (Defendant), the court addressed a dispute arising from a settlement agreement concerning the purchase of property. The central legal issue was whether the Defendant, having agreed to pay Rs. 12 million by a specified deadline, could subsequently benefit from extensions or reinterpretations of the settlement terms after defaulting on the payment. The court determined that the Defendant failed to comply with the settlement, thus entitling the Plaintiff to enforce the originally agreed terms, including the issuance of a writ of ejectment. This decision reaffirmed the principle that settlement agreements recorded in court are binding and cannot be altered unilaterally except by subsequent agreement or law, emphasizing