VEERAPPAN SERVAI Vs. MENNAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this appeal before the Subordinate Judge was whether the decree in Original Suit No. 235 of 1914 as well as those in the appeal and second appeal was binding upon the minor plaintiff in this case. If it were so binding, it is not denied that the question based, on his legitimacy or illegitimacy will be res judicata between him and the defendants,

(2.) The Subordinate Judge, however, has accepted the plaintiff's case that in the conduct of Original Suit No. 235 of 1914 his guardian who was his mother was guilty of original negligence and therefore, he held that the decree in that case and its appeal were not binding upon the minor plaintiff.

(3.) The first point taken by Mr. Ananthakrishna Ayyar before us for the appellants (defendants Nos. 2 and 3) is that there is really no evidence to support this finding of negligence. We are unable to agree with that contention. Even though there might be no oral evidence in support of it, the circumstances in which the previous litigation was carried on by the mother as appearing from the prior judgments are a sufficient foundation for the Subordinate Judge's view that the lady was guilty of gross negligence in the conduct of the case. Circumstantial evidence is as good as any other kind of evidence in such matters and perhaps better evidence than oral evidence.