1. The Civil Revision and Original Petition are in challenge of judgment dated 29.09.1997 in O.S.No.403 of 1996 of the Munsiff's Court, Mavelikkara. Learned Munsiff, by the said judgment found that the suit filed by the petitioner is barred by constructive res judicata under explanation IV to Sec.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") and consequently dismissed the suit.

2. Challenging that judgment, petitioner filed C.R.P.No.394 of 2011 on 25.08.2011 with C.M.Appl.No.428 of 2011 to condone the delay of 4890 days. That application was allowed and the delay was condoned on condition of deposit of cost of Rs.3,000/-with the High Court Advocates Welfare Fund Trust. That condition was complied and the civil revision was admitted as per order dated 09.07.2012.

3. When the civil revision came up for hearing before me during early, 2013, I expressed doubt whether the Civil Revision is maintainable since whether it is by a 'finding' or by 'judgment', learned Munsiff found that the suit to be not maintainable and consequently dismissed the suit and hence remedy of petitioner was to prefer a regular appeal challenging the judgment and decree dismissing the suit. Some arguments were raised whether it was possible to convert the civil revision into an Original Petition under Art.227 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the respondents asserted that the Court cannot grant such permission when the Civil Revision is not maintainable. Obviously understanding the difficulty in sustaining the Civil Revision or converting it into an Original Petition, petitioner filed O.P(C).No.903 of 2013 on 01.03.2013 challenging the above said judgment of learned Munsiff.

4. Petitioner(stated to be a deaf and dumb lady), executed gift deed No.3285 of 1978 on 18.11.1978 concerning the suit property, transferring her right, title and interest over the said property to the respondents reserving for herself a life interest in the said property. I am told that in exercise of that power petitioner is still residing in the suit property.

5. On 23.11.1978, petitioner executed document No.3319 of 1978 purporting to cancel gift deed No.3285 of 1978. Respondents filed O.S.No.127 of 1984 for a declaration that gift deed No.3285 of 1978 has taken effect, to set aside document No.3319 of 1978 and for consequential injunction. That suit was resisted by the petitioner but ended in a decree in favour of respondents. Petitioner preferred an appeal against judgment and decree in O.S.No.127 of 1984 but the appeal was dismissed in the year, 1996.

6. After dismissal of the appeal, without challenging the judgment and decree of the appellate court by way of a second appeal, petitioner filed O.S.No.403 of 1996 for a declaration that gift deed No.3285 of 1978 is void (for non compliance with Sec.123 of the Transfer of Property Act - for short, "the Act" and for consequential injunction. Respondents interalia contended that suit is hit by Sec.11 of the Code as the decision in O.S.No.127 of 1984, confirmed by the appellate court is binding on petitioner and that at any rate, plea raised in O.S.No.403 of 1996 ought to have been raised by way of defence in O.S.No.127 of 1984 and that having not been done, that plea is barred by constructive res judicata.

7. Learned Munsiff considered that question as a preliminary issue under Rule 2 of Order XIV of the Code, answered the issue against petitioner and consequentially dismissed the suit. Thus, this Civil Revision and Original Petition as first above stated.

8. Learned counsel for respondents has raised objection to the maintainability of the Civil Revision and the Original Petition. Learned counsel submits that since whether by way of 'judgment' or 'finding' on the issue regarding res judicata trial court found that suit is maintainable and consequentially dismissed the suit, that judgment is followed by a decree and that judgment and decree are amenable to an appeal under Sec.96(1) of the Code. It is c