The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order 32 of the Civil Procedure Code in setting aside a decree passed against a minor and the legal requirements for invoking the principle of res judicata.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the decree passed in O.S.No.1731 of 1979 wherein he was represented by Guardian, Hamsa Ammal is null and void and not binding on him and the auction of the property conducted in pursuance of the said decree O.S.No.731 of 1979 is also liable to be cancelled.

3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that the property belonged to one Kannan Chetty and it was his ancestral property and the plaintiff was his son and Kannan Chetty died in the year 1977 leaving the plaintiff as his only heir. The defendants 3 to 5 claimed to be the legal heirs of Kannan Chetty filed a suit in O.S.No.81 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvannamalai, for partition and in that suit, it was contested by the defendants 3 to 5 that the 3rd defendant was the wife of Kannan Chetty and the defendants 4 and 5 were born to the 3rd defendant through Kannan Chetty and therefore, they are also the legal-heirs of Kannan Chetty along with the plaintiff and that suit O.S.No.81 of 1978 was decreed and the plaintiff filed appeal in A.S.No.13 of 1980 and that appeal was allowed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants 3 to 5 filed second appeal in the High Court in S.A.No.1166 of 1981 and the same was pending at the time of filing of the suit. It was, therefore, stated that the defendants 3 to 5 were not the legal-heirs of Kannan Chetty and it was held that there was no marriage between Kannan Chetty and the 3rd defendant and the defendants 3 to 5 in collusion with the 1st defendant, made the 1st defendant to file the suit O.S.No.1731 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvanamalai, against the plaintiff and the defendants 3 to 5 for recovery of money on the basis of the promissory note alleged to have been executed by Kannan Chetty and in the suit O.S.No.1731 of 1979, plaintiff was represented by the 3rd defendant and the suit was not contested and an ex-parte decree was passed and based on the ex-parte decree, the property was brought to sale in execution of the decree and the 2nd defendant purchased the property and as the plaintiff was not properly represented in O.S.No.1731 of 1979 and he was represented by the 3rd defendant, who was having adverse interest against the plaintiff as the plaintiff disputed the title of the 3rd defendant viz., the 2nd wife of Kannan Chetty and that was also upheld by the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.13 of 1980 holding that the 3rd defendant was not the wife of Kannan Chetty and therefore, the decree passed in O.S.No.1731 of 1979 against the plaintiff represented by the 3rd defendant is not binding on the plaintiff and therefore, the auction sale conducted in pursuant to the decree is also not binding on the plaintiff and the suit was filed within three years from the date of attaining majority and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for.

4. The defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit stating that the decree passed in O.S.No.1731 of 1979 is binding on the plaintiffs as they were represented by their step-mother and guardian viz., 3rd defendant and there was no collusion between the 1st defendant and the 3rd defendant and the 3rd defendant was not acting against the interest of the minor plaintiff and therefore, the sale is binding on the plaintiff.

5. It was further contended that the plaintiff represented by his paternal uncle, filed a suit in O.S.No.591 of 1983 against the very same party viz., the defendants in the suit for the same relief and that suit was dismissed after contest on 16.11.1984 and without filing an appeal against the said decree, the present suit was filed for the same relief and therefore, the present suit is barred by res-judicata by reason of the judgment rendered in O.S.No.591 of 1983 and therefore, the suit is not maintainable.

6. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had already filed a suit in O.S.No.591