YAKUB ROWTHER Vs. POONGAVANAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the seven defendants on the basis of the sale deed Ex.A-1 executed by second defendant on 24.4.1967. THE same property was sold by the second defendant along defendants 3, 4 and 5 under Ex.B-10 sale deed dated 2.3.1978 in favour of first defendant. According to the plaintiff on the basis of Ex.B-10 the defendants 1, 6 and 7 interfered the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. THErefore the suit.

(2.) DEFENDANTS 1, 6 and 7 are contesting the suit while other defendants remained ex parte.

(3.) THE trial court held that the judgment in A.S.No.447 of 1973 and the judgment A.S.No.46 of 1978 do not operate as res judicata as contended by the defendants. If further held the second defendant Pachaiyammal was a major on the date of the sale deed in favour the plaintiff and the plaintiff was also in possession of the property on the date of the THErefore the suit was decreed as prayed for. THE contesting defendants 1, 6 and 7 A.S.No.120 of 1982 in the Sub Court, Cuddalore and the Court gave a finding to the that the said two judgments in the earlier proceedings operate as res judicata and therefore it allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. As against this the present second appeal preferred.