PALANI GOUNDAN (DEAD) Vs. SUPPIA GOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be decided in this appeal is, has the subject-matter of the action become res judicata ? The plaintiffs derive their title from one. Muthu Goundan, and the defendants from Palani Ammal, the widow of the last male holder. Muthu filed as a presumptive reversioner of the estate of one Raya Goundan O.S. No. 83 of 1908 for a declaration that a mortgage executed by Palani in favour of the 2nd defendant in that suit was not binding upon the reversionary heirs. Palani, who was the 1 defendant as also the mortgagee defendant, denied the relationship set up by the plaintiff. The first issue framed in the case. raised the question whether Muthu was related in the manner alleged in the plaint and was the reversioner as claimed. After a witness was examined, Muthu, discovering that the pedigree on which he relied was wrong, applied to be allowed to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit. The Court refused the permission and the plaintiff having declined to withdraw the suit without such permission, the Court disposed of the case on the merits. The issue relating to Muthu being the reversionary heir was found against him and the suit was dismissed. Muthu then filed an appeal which was also dismissed. In the present suit Muthu alleges that he has become the actual reversioner in whom the estate has vested and possession is claimed on that footing. The matter really decided becomes apparent from the following passage of the judgment of the District Munsif in O.S. No. 83 of 1908: In the affidavit now filed by the plaintiffs in support of their petition for withdrawal of the suit with permission to sue again they admit that the pedigree given by them along with the plaint is not correct. Ex. I, the registration copy of sale deed executed by 1 plaintiff's father, shows that the 1 plaintiff's grandfather was not Perumal Goundan as given in the plaintiffs pedigree but his name was Chinna Thirumalai Goundan. From Ex. II the division release deed between the plaintiffs 2 to 4 attested by 1 plaintiff, it is also clear that 1 plaintiff is not related to the other plaintiffs as he claims to be in the pedigree. The burden of proving the relationship to 1 defendant's husband and thus their reversionary right to his estate lies heavily on the plaintiffs and they have failed to discharge it. I find the first issue against the plaintiffs and, on that finding alone, dismiss the suit.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge, in appeal from the decision of the District Munsif, thus deals with the question: Upon the evidence on the record the Lower Court has found that plaintiffs have failed to prove their reversionary right and I concur in its finding. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

(3.) The point, therefore, to be decided is, whether the question of the reversionary right of Muthu has become res judicata. This issue has been decided in favour of the plaintiff by the Lower Courts and the 3 defendant appeals.