LAXMI Vs. SEETHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20-4-1982 passed by the Civil Judge, Puttur in R.A. No. 13/1979. By the said judgment, the learned Civil Judge set aside the judgment and decree dated 15-1-1971 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Puttur in O.S. No. 469 / 1968. The learned Principal Munsif by the said judgment had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent 1 Seethamma. This second appeal has been referred to the Division Bench by an order dated 29-8-1991 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under:

(3.) The suit of the plaintiff was resisted mainly by defendants 1 to 7. In sum, they contended that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. Defendant 12 has also filed his written statement. Some other defendants also have put in their separate written statements. They are referred to in the course of the judgment of the learned Munsiff. The main thrust of the submission reflected in the written statement of the contesting defendants is that the suit is barred by the principles of res judicata as also by the provisions of O.23, R. 1(3), C.P.C. They also took up a contention that the properties allotted to Kunhanna Rai were not merely a life estate but they were allotted to him absolutely. They also contended that the suit is barred by time.