JUDGMENT :- The defendant is the appellant. The suit is for (1) a declaration that the decree in O. S. No. 344 of 1957 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Pattukkottai, and the decrees in Appeals awarding 1/6th share to the 1st defendant herein are not binding on the plaintiff, (2) for a declaration, that the first defendant herein is entitled only to 1/12th share in the suit properties and (3) for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from taking further proceedings in pursuance of the decree passed in O. S. No. 344 of 1957 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Pattukottai. One Appasami had two sons Ramasarni and Veeraswami. On the death of Appasami, his 1/3rd share in the joint family properties devolved on his widow Nagammal and the said two sons Ramaswami and Veerasami. Veerasami died leaving defendants 1 and 2, his widows and adopted son (plaintiff), whom he adopted on 27-4-1956 prior to his death. The plaintiff, as such adopted son of Veerasami became entitled to a half share in the 1/3rd share to which Veerasami was entitled. The remaining half share devolved on his widows, defendants 1 and 2.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is entitled to 2/12th share, defendants 1 and 2 to 1/12th share each, the third defendant namely Ramasami is entitled to 1/3rd and Nagammal entitled to the other 1/3rd share. The first defendant, one of the widows of Veerasami filed O. S. No. 344 of 1957 in the District Munsif's Court, Pattukkottai claiming that she is entitled to 1/6th share and for partition and separate possession of l/6th share. The third defendant Ramaswami, in this Suit, was the first defendant in that suit. The plaintiff herein was the second defendant and the second defendant herein was the third defendant. Nagammal was impleaded as a fourth defendant in that suit. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 344 of 1957 obtained a decree for partition and separate possession of her l/6th share and the decree was confirmed in appeal.

3. The case of the plaintiff In this suit is that the decree passed in O. S. No. 344 of 1957 is not binding on him as he was not represented at all by any guardian ad litem in the said suit. No one was appointed as guardian ad litem as the court did not pass any order appointing the third defendant herein or any one else as the guardian. The plaintiff contended that he was not represented at all in that suit and he has filed the present suit for the reliefs metioned above.

4. The first defendant filed a written statement denying the adoption by Veerasami and stated that the plaintiff was fully represented in O. S. No. 344 of 1957 and in the appeals therefrom, that defendants 2 and 3 herein expressed their willingness in the former suit to be the guardian to the plaintiff herein, that the second defendant actually filed a written statement, that the father of the plaintiff was mentioned as the guardian in the trial Court and it was he who filed the appeal to the Sub-Court and the second appeal to the High Court, that the first defendant filed an application for passing a final decree and the present plaintiff put forward the same contentions as he is now putting forward in the present suit, that the trial Court dismissed the final decree application, but it was set aside by the High Court in C. R. P. No. 2424 of 1961 and that the

plaintiff is debarred from filing this suit and the suit is barred by res judicata.

5. The trial Court held that, notwithstanding the absence of a formal order of appointment of a guardian ad litem for the minor in the former suit, no prejudice had been caused to the minor on account of the same, that the minor was substantially represented in the former suit and that the decision in O. S. No. 344 of 1957 and appeals therefrom are binding on the plaintiff. The trial Court also negatived the adoption put forward and held the present suit was barred by res judicata by reason of the decision in O. S. 344 of 1957 and the suit was accordingly dismissed.

6. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document