The plaintiff had the right to file the present suit for the reliefs sought for under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the judgment rendered in Second Appeal No.110 of 1984 did not operate as res judicata to the present case.

This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed in Appeal Suit No.49 of 2000 by the Subordinate Court, Kulithalai.

2. The first respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.461 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kulithalai, for the reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and alternatively for recovery of possession, wherein the present appellant and the respondents 2 & 3 have been shown as defendants.

3. It is averred in the plaint that the suit property is originally belonged to the first defendant and the same has been assigned in his name. From the date of assignment, the first defendant has enjoyed the suit property. On 20.08.1973 the defendants and their minor children have executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,000/- and put him in possession of the suit property. Due to recent misunderstanding, the defendants have interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has filed Original Suit No.892 of 1980 for the relief of permanent injunction and the same has been dismissed and against the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.892 of 1980, an appeal has been preferred on the file of the Subordinate Court, Karur in Appeal Suit No.37 of 1982 and the same has been allowed and consequently the suit has been decreed as prayed for. The first defendant therein as appellant has filed Second Appeal No.110 of 1984 on the file of the High Court and the same has been allowed and consequently the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court are reversed. Since the earlier suit has been filed for the relief of permanent injunction, the present suit has been filed for the reliefs of declaration, Permanent injunction and alternatively for recovery of possession.

4. It is averred in the written statement filed by the first defendant that the defendants have not executed any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the suit property. The plaintiff has been doing money lending business. The first defendant has approached the plaintiff for getting loan by way of mortgaging the suit property, but the plaintiff has insisted him to execute a sale deed and accordingly the defendants have executed the sale deed mentioned in the plaint. Even though the sale deed mentioned in the plaint has been executed in favour of the plaintiff, patta for the suit property stands in the name of the first defendant and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the plaint and altogether the present suit deserves dismissal.

5. On the basis of the rival contentions raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after per pending both the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the suit with costs. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff as appellant has preferred Appeal Suit No.49 of 2000 on the file of the first appellate Court.

6. The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and after 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 with regard to the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession. Against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the present second appeal has been filed at the instance of the first defendant as appellant.

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

"a) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in law in holding that the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in S.A.No.110 of 1984 between the same parties would not bar the present suit filed by the 1st respondent?

b) Would not the finding regarding Ex.A1 by this Hon'ble Court in S.A.No.110 of 1984 bind the parties as a precedent whi