The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res judicata in determining the entitlement of the parties to the property left behind by Late. Velusamy.

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

The first and second defendants in O.S.No.14 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul are the appellants herein.

2. O.S.No.14 of 2004 had been filed by the plaintiffs Tmt. Vijayakumari, Rajamanoharan, and Selvi. Menaka, seeking 5/8th undivided share in the suit schedule properties and also mesne profits. The said suit came up for consideration on 17.01.2005 and the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul, decreed the suit in so far as the second and third plaintiffs were concerned and granted 1/4th undivided share in the A and B schedule properties and dismissed the suit with respect to C and D schedule properties and also with respect to the claim for past mesne profits. The suit was dismissed as against the first plaintiff.

3. Challenging the said Judgment and decree the first and second defendants have filed the present appeal.

O.S.No.14 of 2004:

4. In the plaint, it had been claimed that the first plaintiff Tmt.Vijayakumari, was the legally wedded second wife of Late. Velusamy. The second defendant Lakshmiammal, was said to be the legally wedded first wife of Late. Velusamy. The first defendant Muthammal was the mother of Late. Velusamy. The second and third plaintiffs Rajamanoharan and Menaka were said to be the children of Late. Velusamy, born through the first plaintiff Vijayakumari. The third defendant M. Jamal Mohammed, had been impleaded since it was stated that he had entered into an agreement to purchase the suit schedule properties. However, he remained exparte in the suit.

5. The plaintiffs, claimed that Late. Velusamy, had married the second defendant Lakshmiammal in the year 1965. They did not have any children. The first defendant Muthammal and the second defendant Lakshmiammal themselves arranged the marriage of Velusamy with the first plaintiff Vijayakumari as his second wife. It was further stated that the second and third defendants Rajamanoharan and Menaka, were born to Vijayakumari out of the said wedlock. It was stated that Velusamy died on 06.04.1989.

6. The A schedule properties were lands in Alakkuvarpatti Village, Dindigul. The B schedule property was house in Chettinayakanpatti Village, Dindigul. The C schedule properties were gold jewels weighing 50 sovereigns. The D schedule properties were vessels and utensils. The plaintiffs claimed themselves as legal representatives of deceased Velusamy and stated that, the first defendant was entitled to 1/4th share and the first plaintiff and second defendant were jointly entitled to an undivided 1/4th share and the second and third plaintiffs were entitled to an undivided + share. Consequently, claiming partition and separate possession of the 5/8th undivided share in the suit schedule properties, the plaintiffs filed the said suit.

7. The second defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the first defendant. In the said written statement, it was stated that the first plaintiff Vijayakumari, was not the legally wedded wife of Velusamy. It was stated that there were earlier proceedings in O.S.No.327 of 1989 relating to the status of the plaintiffs and since that suit went against the present defendants they filed A.S.No.226 of 1994 before the District Court Dindigul, and it was decided that the first plaintiff was not the wife of Velusamy. It was stated that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in the suit properties.

8. The third defendant did not file any written statement and remained as exparte.

9. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed:

(i) Whether the suit barred by res judicata?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition and separate possession and past mesne profits?

(iii) To what reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled to?

10. During trial, the first plaintiff Vijayakumari was examined as PW-1 and another witness Murugesan was examined as PW-2. On the side of the defendants, the second def