Rajamannar, C.J.-This second appeal involves a question of res judicata. It arises out of a suit for possession brought by the respondent claiming to be the reversioner to one Subbanna Goundan alias Subbaraya Goundan, who died in 1916. Subbaraya Goundan left behind him his widow, Pavayi Ammal, a son, Nachimuthu, and a daughter, Valliammal, the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is the son, and the 3rd defendant, the husband of the 1st defendant. Nachimuthu died unmarried on 6th December, 1928, and on his death his mother Pavayi Ammal succeeded to the properties left by Subbanna Goundan. Pavayi died in 1947. The suit was brought in July, 1948. There could be no doubt whatever that in accordance with the provisions of Act II of 1929, the 1st defendant would be entitled to succeed to the exclusion of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, however, claimed that he would be entitled to succeed because of the decision in a prior suit, O.S. No. 933 of 1932, brought by him in the following circumstances: On 22nd September, 1932, Pavayi executed a deed, in and by which she purported to convey the suit property to her daughter, the 1st defendant in the suit and her son, the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff

Click Here to Read the rest of this document