Ramaprasada Rao, J.- On leave granted by Ramanujam, J., these Letters Patent Appeals are before us. The appellants in L.P.A No. 30 of 1973 are defendants 2 and 12 in the original suit, who are the alienees of certain properties which constituted the subject-matter of that suit. Appellant in L.P.A. No. 38 of 1974, is the plaintiff in that suit. It will be convenient to extract the full judgment of Ramanujam, J., which is very analystical and explanatory as regards facts of the case which go back to nearly four decades before. In order to avoid repetition and waste of judicial time we thought it fit to incorporate in our judgment the judgment of Ramanujam, J., so that for the purpose of continuity, the facts as related by the learned Judge, which are not in dispute before us, may be taken as representing the correct position in relation to the relationship as well as the rights inter se as between the parties. The judgment of Ramanujam, J., runs as follows:

“These two second appeals arise out of a common judgment, the first one by defendants 2 and 12 and the second one by the legal representative of the third defendant in the same suit O.S.No. 183 of 1965 on the file of the sub-Court, Madurai. The suit is one for recovery of possession of the suit properties from the various defendants with future mesne profits. The plaintiff’s case is this: The suit properties originally belonged to one Ramaswami Pillai, who died on 1st January, 1920 leaving behind him only his two widows, Kuppammal and Chinnathayammal. Kuppammal died in 1934. Chinnathayammal, the first defendant had a daughter Chokkayee who also died in the year 1936 without any issue. On 15th July, 1937 the first defendant adopted the plaintiff as the son of her husband, late Ramaswami Pillai. As the relations of the late Ramaswami Pillai and his widows had alienated most of the properties the plaintiff filed an earlier suit, O.S.No. 57 of 1948 for recovery of possession of the properties in the hands of the first defendant and of the alienees. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the adoption of the plaintiff was invalid. There was an appeal, A.S.No. 350 of 1958 before this Court wherein the adoption of the plaintiff was up held and the non-binding character of the alienations by various persons in respect of properties covered by that suit was declared. But during the pendency of the said suit the first defendant had alienated the properties in this suit in favour of defendants 2 to 11. The alienees having had full knowledge of the said suit, the alienations cannot bind the plaintiff and there was no necessity for the first-defendant to alienate any of the properties as there was sufficient income from the properties for her maintenance and other expenses. On these averments the plaintiff sought recovery of possession from defendants 2 to 11.”

2. The first defendant filed a written statement fully supporting the case of the plaintiff. The second defendant contended that he had purchased suit items 1 and 2 of an aggregate extent of 8 acres 5 cents comprised in survey No. 173 from the first defendant under Exhibit B-24, dated 3lst August, 1962 and P-25 dated 18th March, 1964 for a total consideration of Rs. 20,760 and that these purchases will not be affected by the proceedings in O.S.No. 57 of 1948, that the plaintiff was not the adopted son of late Ramaswami Pillai, that the plaintiff cannot question the alienations made by the first defendant in his favour, that the decision in O.S.No. 57 of 1948 was not binding on him, he not being a party to that suit, and that the plaintiff not having been given any relief in the earlier suit in respect of the properties then held by the first defendant, his claim in the present suit was barred by res judicata and that in any event, the suit is barred by limitation.

3. Defendants 3 and 12 also raised practically the same defence. The third defendant had purchased items 3 to 8 of A schedule under Exhibit P-11, d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document