MANGALATHAMMAL Vs. VEERAPPA GOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this appeal is one of res judicata. The contesting parties are the plaintiff and his sister, the 3rd defendant. The District Munsif dismissed the suit, holding that it was barred by reason of the decision in Original Suit No. 129 of 1913 by the Appellate Court. The Subordinate Judge, who was the same Judge who decided the appeal in the other suit, held that his decision did not operate as res judicata in this suit and sent the case back to the District Munsif for deciding the other issues.

(2.) In Original Suit No. 129 of 1913 (587 of 1912) the plaintiff sued as lessor to recover rent and to obtain possession of the suit house from the 3rd defendant, setting up (1) an arrangement whereby his own mother Nagammal and his two aunts Almelu and Mariayee, being unable to discharge the debts of their mother Chellayee and aunt Minakshi, agreed to let 1st plaintiff have the exclusive possession of the suit property on condition of his discharging those debts, (2) a lease of the house from month to month to the 3rd defendant. He alleged in the plaint a single cause of action which was the date of default in the payment of rent, April 1st, 1912.

(3.) The District Munsif found for the plaintiff on the issue as to letting and against the defendant upon the independent title set up by her. He did not decide the question as to the plaintiffs title, as he considered the issue unnecessary. He gave the plaintiff a decree for rent and possession. The Subordinate Judge found against the plaintiff both on the lease and on the exclusive title sat up by him and dismissed the suit.