KANNAN Vs. UMA ALIAS UMA MAHESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 are the appellants. THE appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2006, passed in A.S.No.16 of 2000, on the file of the Additional District-cum-Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 26.11.1999, passed in O.S.No.431 of 1994, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Paramakudi. THE suit is filed for declaration and injunction.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows:- THE suit property originally belonged to one Seethalakshmi Ammal and Guruvammal. After the death of Seethalakshmi Ammal, her legal heirs one Soundarapandian and Meenakshi became entitled to the property and they were enjoying the property along with the said Guruvammal. THE said Soundarapandian and Meenakshi executed a sale deed in favour of one Pulikutti Servai and the said Pulikutti Servai was in possession and enjoyment of the property. On 12.05.1987, the said Pulikutti Servai died leaving behind one Balu, Mallika, Rajammal and the defendants 1 & 2 as his legal heirs. After the death of Pulikutti Servai, there was an oral family partition among the children of Pulikutti Servai in the year 1987. THE suit property fell into the share of Balu. THE said Balu died on 26.12.1988 leaving behind the plaintiffs as legal heirs. THE first plaintiff is the wife and the second plaintiff is the daughter. However, the first plaintiff died pending suit and the second plaintiff is the only surviving legal heir. As the defendants are claiming some title over the property, the suit is filed for declaration and injunction.

(3.) ON admission, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:- a. Has not the lower appellate Court overlooked the title of appellant which had been upheld in O.S.No.150 of 1984, to which the plaintiffs predecessor in title was a party? b. Whether the lower appellate court had misconstrued the concept of res judicata resulting in perverse findings? c. Whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court is vitiated for non compliance of order-41, Rule-31 of C.P.C.?"