Family arrangement-Duty of Court.

This second appeal raises an interesting question of res judicata. The plaintiff in a suit for partition and separate possession of a half share in the suit properties, has preferred the second appeal. Her claim to a half share in the properties has been accepted by the Courts below on the merits, but is found barred by a prior judgment in a suit to which the plaintiff and the first defendant were parties. The material facts are now concluded by the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The suit properties and other properties originally belonged to one Palaniyandi Servai who left five sons, Udaippan Servai, Muthuchamy Servai, Muthuveeran Servai, Muthukaruppan Servai and Velu Servai. Plaintiff Kamalayee Ammal is the widow of Muthuchamy Servai who died undivided long prior to the enactment of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937. She had a son Palaniyandi Servai and a daughter Alagammal. The son Palaniyandi Servai died in 1952, leaving surviving his widow Parvathi, the first defendant in this suit. The second defendant in the suit, a minor, is the sister’s son of the first defendant and claims absolute title to the suit properties under a registered settlement deed Exhibit B-1, dated 5th November, 1956, executed by the first defendant for herself and on behalf of her daughter Chinthamani in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiff pleaded family arrangement in 1955, under which in lieu of her claim for maintenance and other claims under the Hindu Law such as residence and expenses for the ceremony of her husband, it was agreed to partition the family properties among the members of the family and give the plaintiff and the first defendant jointly a 1/5th share, that is, the share of the plaintiff’s husband’s branch, making them jointly liable for the discharge of 1/5th share of the debts due by the family. Originally there was an oral partition and this was followed by a registered deed of partition executed by members of the family, Exhibit A-1, dated 5th January, 1958, being registration copy of the partition deed. The suit properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff and the first defendant jointly. The plaintiff’s claim to partition of the properties was met by the first defendant with denial of the family arrangement. The plea of the first defendant was that, in an oral partition of 1956, the 1/5th share in question was allotted to her and not, to the plaintiff and her jointly. She pleaded that her signature to the partition deed Exhibit A-1 was obtained by misrepresentation and set up the settlement deed she had executed in favour of the second defendant vesting him with the title of the properties. The first defendant disclaimed all her interests in the suit properties after execution of the settlement deed, and, the second defendant, in his written statement, claimed that as and from 5th November, 1956, he became the owner of the suit properties and was in possession of the same. In addition, was put forward the plea that the plaintiff’s claim had been found against after contest in the suit, Original Suit No. 94 of 1962, on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Melur, and that barred the retrial of the related issues. The two substantial questions for consideration by the Courts below were the truth and validity of the family settlement and the plea of res judicata. The Courts below, on ample and substantial evidence, find that, in settlement of dispute between the widows in respect of their rights in the properties and to avoid future wasteful litigation, the family arrangement as claimed by the plaintiff must have come into existence allotting a half share in the suit properties to the plaintiff also. The trial Court holds that it has been satisfactorily established that there was an oral partition in or about 1955, in which the plaintiff’s right to a half share in the suit properties was recognised, the first defendant being consenting party thereto, that it is only this righ