Mother held entitled for absolute right over one house property.

The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants.

2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit property and also to direct the defendants to give account for the income from the suit property from the date of plaint till date of recovery of possession. One Kallikattan Arumuga Chettiar had two sons, namely, Karuppa Chettiar @ Karuppanna and Subramanian Chettiar. Karuppa Chettiar died intestate leaving behind him his wife, Thailammai Ammal and the plaintiffs are their daughters. Subramanian Chettiar died leaving behind him his wife Ponnammal. Subramanian Chettiar had two wives, namely, Valliyammai and Ponnammal. The first wife Valliammai died leaving behind her two daughters, Koothalammal and Kaveri. The said Koothalammal died and her children are defendants 3 and 4. The schedule mentioned properties were ancestral joint family properties belonged to Karuppa Chettiar and Subramania Chettiar and they were not divided. After their death, the brother of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant were in possession and enjoyment. The mother of the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.467 of 1955 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kulithalai for maintenance. Taking advantage of her ignorance, the 1st defendant got a fraudulent compromise decree in her favour and the compromise decree is not valid as it was obtained fraudulently and even on the date of the alleged compromise decree, the mother of the plaintiffs has got absolute right and the same got enlarged as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Even subsequent to the decree, the plaintiffs' mother has been in possession. The plaintiffs have been in joint possession along with the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant filed suit against the plaintiffs for possession in respect of B schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, the 2nd defendant died and there is no legal heir. Hence the suit.

The 1st defendant filed a written statement and denied that the suit properties are the ancestral properties. They belonged to the husband of the 1st defendant. Karuppa Chettiar and Subramanian Chettiar are brothers and Karuppa Chettiar died leaving behind Subramanian Chettiar. In fact, the mother of the plaintiffs filed a suit after the demise of her husband that the properties belong to her as the legal heir in O.S.No.655 of 1952 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kulithalai for declaration. There is a clear finding that there was no partition between Karuppa Chettiar and Subramanian Chettiar and the suit was also dismissed. Subsequently, to claim at least maintenance, she filed O.S.No.467 of 1955 and at the intervention of mediators in the Village, there was a compromise wherein it was agreed to give Rs.300/= per annum to her by way of maintenance and she was also permitted to reside in item 3 of the house property till her lifetime. After her lifetime, the house property should devolve upon the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs are also well aware of the compromise. It is not correct to state that the properties were enjoyed in common. The suit is also barred on the principles of res judicata. It is incorrect to state that the right, if any available to the mother got enlarged by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. On her demise, plaintiffs 1 and 2 illegally trespassed into the house property and for which only, she filed O.S.No. 2 of 1983. The plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief.

Defendants 3 and 4 filed a written statement supporting the case of the 1st defendant. The mother of the plaintiffs filed the suit for maintenance claiming a charge over the properties and it was contested and ultimately compromised. The plaintiffs' mother was fully aware of the compromise and also the terms and willingly signed the same. The compromise decree was also executed by the mother and the charged properties were brought for sale. After execution of the decree only, monies were realised and were