SATTU KOTESWARAMMA Vs. SATTU SUBRAHMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the rejection of a petition for leave to file a suit for partition and separate possession of a half share in the plaint schedule properties in forms pauperis.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge, who enquired the in to the Original Petition, came to the conclusion that the appellant was not possessed of sufficient means but all the same rejected the petition on the ground that " the petitioner on his own allegations does not have a cause of action and her present suit is barred by the previous decision in O. S. No. 203 of 1963, District Munsifs Court, Guntur, as confirmed in appeal. "

(3.) The suit is by the widow of a predeceased son of the Ist respondent herein for partition and separate possession of a half share in the plaint schedule properties. In the plaint it is alleged that the plaint schedule properties, were joint or joint family properties of her husband and the Ist respondent, and that they both constituted a Hindu undivided family and consequent on the death of her husband, she is entitled to a half share therein. She pleaded that she was not possessed of sufficient means to pay the court-fee. The defendant ( respondent ) denied that the allegation and also pleaded that in view of the decision in an earlier suit, O. S. No. 203 of 1963, the plaintiffs claim to a share in the plaint schedule properties was barred by the principle of res judicata. In that earlier suit the appellant had prayed for maintenance and for a charge on the present plaint schedule properties on the footing that they were joint family properties of her husband and the Ist respondent. One of the issues that fell for consideration in that suit was whether these properties were joint family properties and whether the plaintiffs husband was entitled to a share therein. The suit was decided against the present appellant after due enquiry and that finding was confirmed on appeal. In view of the above, the plea of res judicata was raised. This ground of objection found favour with the lower Court.