K. SUNDARAMBAL Vs. K. MURUGESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant in the present Second Appeal.

(2.) The suit was filed by the appellant seeking for the relief of declaration to declare the final decree dtd. 7/6/2006 passed in I.A.No.291 of 2005 in O.S.No.138 of 2002, as null and void. The main ground that was taken by the appellant to challenge the final decree as null and void is that it is vitiated by fraud.

(3.) The case of the appellant is that she along with her mother became the owner of the suit property by virtue of registered Settlement Deed dtd. 24/4/2006 executed by her father P.V.Kandasamy. The further case of the plaintiff is that the 2nd and 3rd defendants filed a suit for partition against the 1st defendant and the above said P.V.Kandasamy in O.S.No.138 of 2002. An ex-parte decree was passed in the said suit on 9/4/2003. Pursuant to the same, the 2nd and 3rd defendants filed a petition in I.A.No.282 of 2005 for passing final Decree. When the final decree application was pending, a compromise petition came to be filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of C.P.C. in I.A.No.291 of 2005. It is during the pendency of this compromise petition, the Settlement Deed came to be executed by Mr.P.V.Kandasamy in favour of the appellant and her mother on 24/4/2006. In spite of the same, ultimately a final decree came to be passed based on the compromise petition on 7/6/2006. According to the appellant, this final decree is vitiated by fraud and hence, the appellant filed the present suit seeking to declare the final decree as null and void.