Dismissal of a suit under Order IX, Rule 8 bars the filing of a fresh suit on the same cause of action, and this bar extends to the legal representatives or assignees of the plaintiff.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is to the Judgment and decree dated 08.09.1995 passed in Appeal Suit No.117 of 1991 by the Sub Court, Tuticorin.

2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.710 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tuticorin for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein the present appellant has been shown as defendant.

3. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 24.02.1983 from one Paul Thangaraj and he purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 10. 1962 and his predecessor-in-title has purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 111. 1952. The Government has granted patta for the suit property. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant is the eastern owner of the property and since she tried to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property by way of denying his title, the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought for in the plaint.

4. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendant, it is averred that with regard to the suit property already Original Suit No.16 of 1983 has been instituted by the alleged predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff and the same has been dismissed and therefore the present is barred under law. It is false to say that the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiff have purchased the suit property and it is also equally false to say that the plaintiff has purchased the same. The defendant is the owner of the suit property and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and there is no merit in the suit and the same deserves dismissal.

5. On the basis of the claims and counterclaims made on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after evaluating both the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the suit. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff as appellant has preferred Appeal Suit No.117 of 1991 on the file of the first appellate Court.

6. The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has allowed the appeal and thereby set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and consequently decreed the suit as prayed for. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the present second appeal has been preferred at the instance of the defendant as appellant.

7. At the time of admitting the present second appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been formulated for consideration:

.(a) When an earlier suit is dismissed for default, whether the transferee of the original plaintiff also is barred from bringing a fresh suit as per the Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C.?

.(b) When the transferee pendente lite can file a fresh suit after the dismissal of the earlier suit?

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant has attacked the Judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court mainly on the following grounds:

.(a) In respect of the present suit property already Original Suit No.16 of 1983 has been instituted by the alleged predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction and the same has been dismissed for default and subsequently the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff and therefore the present suit is barred under the provisions mentioned in Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

.(b) Neither the plaintiff nor his alleged predecessor-in-title has had any title over the suit property and therefore the Judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court are liable to be interfered with.

9. The learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff has also equally contended that even though the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff has institu