S. Nagamuthu, J.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.376 of 2000, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Virudhachalam, is the appellant. The defendant in the suit is the sole respondent herein. The appellant filed the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner interfering with the alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. On appearance, the defendant filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.2191 of 2003, purportedly, under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by res judicata. The learned Principal District Munsif, Virudhachalam allowed the said interlocutory application and consequently, rejected the plaint in O.S.No.376 of 2000 by decree dated 09.06.2004. As against the same, the appellant filed an appeal in A.S.No.101 of 2005 before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam. By decree and judgment dated 26.06.2007, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal thereby, confirming the order and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the appellant has come up with this second appeal.

2.1 The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows: The suit property was originally owned by the father of the plaintiff. He died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff as his legal heir. Accordingly, the plaintiff inherited the suit property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same all along. It is his further case that the plaintiff's father Mr. Kuppursamy and the father of the defendant were brothers. Earlier the defendant's mother Mrs. Pappa Ammal, filed a suit as against the father of the plaintiff in O.S.No.1413 of 1969 before the learned District Munsif, Virudhachalam, for partition and according to the plaintiff, the said suit was dismissed as against the mother of the defendant. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the defendant has got no right whatsoever over the suit property, since she attempted to disturb his possession, according to the plaintiff, he filed the present suit for bare injunction.

2.2. The defendant in her written statement submitted that it is true that the suit in O.S.No.1413 of 1969 was originally dismissed. But, the said suit was later on restored and thereafter, a compromise was reached between the parties and accordingly, a compromise decree was passed by decree and judgment dated 01.09.1975. As per the compromise decree, the suit property was allotted to the mother of the defendant and after her demise, the defendant had inherited the suit property and thus, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

3. The above facts are not now in dispute. Though in the plaint, the plaintiff has contended that the suit in O.S.No.1413 of 1969 was dismissed initially, now he has admitted that there was a compromise and a compromise decree was passed, in which, the suit property was allotted to the mother of the defendant.

4. The plaint was rejected on accepting the plea of res judicata raised by the defendant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the decree was obtained by means of compromise and not on contest and therefore, the same will not act as res judicata in terms of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant relies on a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Tulsan v. Pyare Lal & Others reported in CDJ 2006 SC 847. In that case, the Honourable Supreme Court, of course, following the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Venkata Reddy and others v. Pethi Reddy reported in AIR 1963 SC 992, in paragraph No.15, has held as follows:

"15. Respondent could not, thus, disclaim the said consent decree by filing a suit for declaration. We may, however, hasten to add that the same would not mean that their right in relation to the other land, as for example, abadi land could be denied. We may record that in fact it was accepted at the bar that they are entitled