VIMALA DEVI Vs. PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs 1 to 3 daughters of the 7th defendant are the appellants. They filed the suit for partition claiming 3/9 shares after setting aside the assignment deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the 6th defendant. Defendants 1 to 5 arc brothers and sisters of the 7th defendant. 6th defendant is a stranger to whom the first defendant had assigned rights over 16 cents of property.

(2.) In an earlier suit (O.S. 255/80) where the plaintiffs were also parties though minors represented by their guardian the 7th defendant the schedule property in the present plaint was also included along with other properties. In that suit it was held that the property scheduled in the present plaint is not available for partition. Contention of the plaintiffs is that Ext.A-1 decree in O.S.255 of 1980 is not binding on them as their mother (7th defendant) was negligent in protecting their interest.

(3.) 7th defendant has supported the case of the plaintiffs. 6th defendant filed written statement contending inter alia that the assignment in his favour from the first defendant cannot be challenged by the plaintiffs as the findings in O.S.255/80 has become final and that it is not open to them to asail the same on the ground that their guardian was not zealous in safeguarding their interests.