(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.476/1999, on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Namakkal, is the appellant herein. He laid the suit for declaring that the decree passed in O.S.93/1989 on the file of the same court - is not binding on him, and for other ancillary reliefs. He lost the suit successively both before trial court and the first Appellate Court. Rival parties would be referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. I The Pleadings:
(2.) The case of the plaintiff can be divided into two parts: There is no dispute regarding facts that led to the filing of the present suit. This is the first part. And, the dispute he has raised in this suit constitutes the second part.
(3.) The case of the defendants (plaintiffs in O.S.93/1989) was that the suit property originally belonged to their father. Be that as it may, the grandfather of the present plaintiff and the former's two sons (the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.93/1989) had encroached into their property, and hence the earlier suit was necessitated for recovery of the property so encroached. The plaintiff's grandfather had filed his written statement, and contested the suit. Subsequently, on the death of the second defendant (father of the plaintiff here), his heirs were impleaded. The counsel who appeared for the other defendants, entered appearance for defendants 4 to 6, the heirs of the deceased second defendant as well. The mother of the plaintiff was appointed as his guardian in that suit. Ultimately, a decree came to be passed and it has become final. Subsequently, these defendants had filed REP.No.186 of 1997 for executing the decree passed in O.S.93/1989. In the E.P, the plaintiff was set exparte. To set aside the exparte order the plaintiff had filed REA 101/1998 and 102/1998 again through the same counsel. The present suit, however, came to be laid after a year, on 04.8.1999. It is obvious that the present suit is instituted only to delay the execution of the decree. The suit is also barred by limitation.