P. KALIAMMAL Vs. V. RATHINAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Short but very interesting point involved in the present second appeal is whether an ex parte decree passed after completion of pleading would constitute res judicata and whether such a decree can be challenged in an separate suit on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation.

(2.) The brief facts involved in this case is as follows:-

(3.) The plaintiffs who are wife, daughter and son of one Perumal, have filed the suit which is the subject matter of the present appeal claiming that the ex parte decree passed in OS.No.233 of 1992 is vitiated by fraud, suppression of facts and misrepresentation. Admittedly, the earlier suit in OS.No.233 of 1992 filed by the first respondent herein against one Perumal who is the husband and father of the present appellants, was contested by Perumal by filing written statement and later he did not participated in the trial and remained ex parte. Hence, the ex parte decree was passed against him on 24.07.1997, culminating him in filing of Execution Petition in REP.No.18 of 1999 by the respondents herein. The execution petition was obstructed and pending execution petition, the said Perumal died intestate on 22.06.2000. The appellants herein were brought on record in the execution petition. Pending, execution petition, the suit in OS.No.156 of 2001 was filed by the appellants who are the legal heirs of late Perunal to declare the earlier decree passed in OS.No.233 of 1992 as void and to declare the appellants as absolute owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction.