LAWS(APH)-1999-8-28

ERADALA TAYARAMMA Vs. ERADALA RAMAKRISHNAYYA

Decided On August 17, 1999
ERADALA TAYARAMMA Appellant
V/S
ERADALA RAMAKRISHNAYYA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 30-6-1989 in OP No.32 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gudivada, dismissing the above said OP on the ground that the previous findings in OS No.316/70 dated 30-10-1974 against which AS No.400 of 1975 was dismissed by the High Court which was filed by the same parties in the above suit and LPA No.94 of 1978 was also dismissed by the High Court, are thus binding and therefore, the above judgment operates as res judicata in the proposed suit of petitioners, the petitioners have no cause of action to file the suit after the disposal of the previous litigation in the High Court. The learned Subordinate Judge has further observed that the present petition is abuse of process of law.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the said OP was filed under Order 33, Rule 1 CPC, to permit the petitioners, who are mother and daughter, to file the suit as indigent persons on the ground that they do not possess any properties except those mentioned in 'B' and 'C' schedules.

(3.) The above OP was resisted by the respondent Nos.2, 10 and 11 by filing counters. The counter filed by respondent No. 10 was adopted by the respondent Nos.7 to 9, contending inter alia that the petitioners have got stridhana gold jewellery to the extent of 25 sovereigns each and they have got money and have been carrying on money lending business, besides running chit funds and that as the suit is a speculative suit the petitioners are not venturning to pay Court fee inspite of having means and capacity to pay and that the suit is not maintainable on the ground of res judicata and estoppel and that the decision in OS No.20 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif, Gannavaram became final and that the status of the petitioners was finally decided in OS No.316 of 1970 by the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, which was confirmed in appeal AS No.400 of 1975 by the High Court; which decision was further confirmed by a Bench of the High Court in LPA No.94 of 1978.