The principle of constructive resjudicata and the requirement of satisfactory documentary evidence to establish a claim were central legal points established in the judgment.

1. Challenge is made in this memorandum of second appeal to the judgment and decree, dated 26.4.2002 and made in A.S.No.13 of 2001 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri reversing the judgment and decree, dated 12.9.2000 and made in O.S.No.331 of 1990 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ponneri.

2. The appellants 1 to 7 are the plaintiffs 2 to 8 in the suit in O.S.No.331 of 1990. The respondents herein are the defendants 1 to 3.

3. Originally, the suit was filed by the appellants along with one Rajamani Ammal being the first plaintiff.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the said Rajamani Ammal had passed away. Therefore, the remaining plaintiffs 2 to 8 have been recognised as the legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff.

5. The suit was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the respondents/defendants seeking the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain them or anybody on their behalf from attempting to interfere with their possession of the suit property by trying to put up a structure or otherwise and also for costs.

6. The suit was resisted by the defendants. The learned trial Judge, viz., the District Munsif, Ponneri had originally granted the decree of perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, which was in appeal reversed by the learned First Appellate Judge, viz., Subordinate Judge, Ponneri, and thereby he had dismissed the suit after setting aside the judgment and decree on the ground that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as the present suit was affected by the earlier judgment of this Court (High Court, Madras) and made in S.A.No.1422 of 1983, dated 7.11.1986.

7. Impugning the correctness of the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, dated 26.4.2002, the plaintiffs have chosen to prefer this second appeal after invoking the provisions of Order 42 Rule 1 read with Section 100 of C.P.C.

8. For easy reference and for the sake of convenience, the appellants may hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiffs whereas the respondents be referred to as the defendants wherever the context so require.

9. The second appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

a. Whether natham site will vest with the Government under Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act?

b. Whether Civil Court has got jurisdiction to decide the question of title in spite of entries and proceedings under Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act?

c. Was the appellate court correct in not granting decree for injunction as claimed by the claimant?

10. This Court, after going through the substantial questions of law formulated as above finds that the substantial question of law No.3 assume more importance rather than the substantial questions of law No.1 and 2.

11. The reason why is that with reference to the finding of the learned first appellate Judge based on the documents under Ex.B.3, this Court is of view, at the first instance, that the suit itself is not at all maintainable because the subject matter which is in issue in this second appeal has already been decided in the suit in O.S.No.1106 of 1981 by the learned District Munsif, Ponneri on 13.10.1982 after full-fledged trial which was ended in dismissal rejecting the prayer of permanent injunction claimed by the plaintiff therein.

12. The judgment and decree of the trial court, dated 13.10.1982 and made in O.S.No.1106 of 1981 was confirmed by the first appellate court, viz., Sub Court , Tiruvallur on 5.7.1983 in the first appeal in A.S.No.89 of 1982 which was also confirmed by this Court (High Court, Madras) in the second appeal in S.A.No.1422 of 1983, dated 7.11.1986.

13. It is pertinent to note here that the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.1106 of 1981 was one Elumalai, who appears to have filed the above said suit in respect of the property as described in the plaint in O.S.No.1106 of 1981, which has been described as under:-

“