JUDGMENT :

The original defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants herein.

2. Pending second appeal, one Rajarajeswari purchased the property and filed C.M.P.No.868/2012 and it was allowed on 28.09.2012 and she was impleaded as third appellant. Originally, one Muthammal (now late) mother of the third respondent herein filed O.S.No.130/1982 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani against the original defendants praying for the relief of bare injunction. The suit was decreed on 30.04.1998.

3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants 1 and 2 filed A.S.No.82/1988 before the Sub Court, Bhavani and the same was dismissed on 30.03.2000. Hence, the original defendants 1 and 2 filed the above second appeal 966/2000. As stated supra, the third defendant is subsequent purchaser.

4. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed :-

1. Whether the suit in O.S.No.130/82 filed by Muthammal is premature one since she got right over the suit property only subsequent to the suit as per compromise decree in A.S.No.126/82.

2. Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the fourth defendant is entitled to enter into compromise colluding with the plaintiff Muthammal with reference to suit property which was already sold to the defendants 1 and 2.

3. Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the compromise decree in A.S.No.126/82 obtained by the plaintiff Muthammal colluding with the fourth defendant without impleading the defendants 1 and 2 as parties are binding on them.

4. Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the amendment of prayer for delivery of possession is not barred by limitation without considering the fact that the prayer is amended by the legal representative of the original plaintiff in 1993.

5. Whether the Courts below are correct in allowing the prayer for delivery of possession of the suit property without paying the Court Fee for the market value of the property by the plaintiff.

6. Whether Kamala the legal representative of the plaintiff is entitled to claim a new relief and alter the nature of the suit.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents 13 to 18. 6. The original plaintiff Muthammal is the wife of Rangasamy Naidu and they had three branches namely Muralisamy, Lingusamy, Rajamaal and Kamallamaal, the said Muthammal, on the death of Rangasamy Naidu filed the suit for partition in O.S.No.134/1969 before the Sub Court, Erode for partition. Final decree proceedings was initiated in I.A.No.1129/1969 and the same was compromised wherein, the suit schedule property was allotted to the fourth defendant-Saravanan, minor, represented by his mother D3. Final decree in the said suit is Ex.B2. Under Ex.B1, the second defendant Bakkiyam purchased the property from the original fourth defendant on 22.03.1979, it remains to be stated that the original plaintiff Muthammal has filed O.S.No.138/1972 before the learned Sub Judge, Erode to set aside the decree viz., compromise partition decree in O.S.No.134/1969 and the suit was decreed and the vendor of the present appellant along with the minor preferred A.S.No.126/1982 before the Hon'ble High Court.

7. When the first appeal preferred by the vendor of the appellants are pending, the original plaintiff Muthammal seems to have filed O.S.No.130/1982 before the District Munsif Court, Bhavani for a bare injunction, on 12.03.1982, as if she is in possession of the suit property. Pending suit, the original plaintiff executed a Will in favour of the second plaintiff under Ex.A3 on 10.10.1983 and again there is another Will by the first plaintiff in favour of the second plaintiff under Ex.A4 on 03.11.1985. When that being so, on 10.11.1985, the original plaintiff Muthammal and the defendants 3 to 5, who are the appellants in A.S.No.126/1982 appears to have entered into a compromise in the appellate stage. The original plaintiff Muthammal died on 10.07.1988. Thereafter, it app