The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of res judicata and its conclusive effect on the title and ownership of the suit properties, based on the previous judgment in OS.No.107/2008.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal preferred under 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree made in AS.No.41/2016 dated 04.09.2021 by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, at Dharmapuri, reversing the judgment and decree in OS.No.206/2012, dated 27.03.2015 by the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri.)

(1) This Second Appeal is preferred by the defendants in the suit in OS.No.260/2012 as against the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, namely, the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, in AS.No.41/2016, dated 04.09.2021, reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, namely, the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri, dated 27.03.2015, dismissing the suit in OS.No.260/2012.

(2) The 1st respondent in this Second Appeal, as plaintiff, filed the suit in OS.No.260/2012 for declaration of her title and for consequential injunction in respect of the suit properties which were described by two items. The 1st item is an extent of 0.07.5 Hectares in S.No.243/4 in Tokkupothanahalli Village, Dharmapuri Taluk and the 2nd item is an extent of 0.37.0 Hectares in S.No.245/B2A in the same village.

(3) The case of the plaintiff in the plaint are as follows: The suit properties originally belonged to one Shanthamani Ammal, who is the grandmother of plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 3 are the daughters of one Madhaiyan who is the son of one Krishnan and Shanthamani Ammal. The 4th defendant is the wife of the said Madhaiyan. Plaintiff's mother, Tmt.Dhanalakshmi is the daughter of Krishnan and sister of Madhaiyan. since Dhanalakshmi, the mother of plaintiff died when she was four months old, the plaintiff was brought up by her grandmother Shanthamani Ammal. The said Shanthamani Ammal purchased the properties by a document dated 21.07.1977 and obtained patta for the suit properties and they are the self acquired properties of the said Shanthamani Ammal. Since the plaintiff was her granddaughter, the said Shanthamani Ammal executed a Settlement Deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of the suit properties on 25.05.2005. In view of the settlement in favour of plaintiff, the defendants have no right over the suit properties. Defendants 1 to 4 had earlier filed a suit in OS.No.107/2008 claiming partition in respect of several properties including the suit properties in the present suit in OS.No.260/2012. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court in respect of suit properties and thereafter, no further appeal was preferred as against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2012. A specific finding was given by the Court in the previous suit that the suit properties belonged to Shanthamani Ammal and she had already executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the plaintiff herein. Since the title had already been decided in the previous suit in OS.No.107/2008 in favour of the plaintiff herein, the plaintiff's title cannot be disputed by the defendants. However, the defendants tried to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment which was sorted out by the plaintiff with the help of villagers. Stating that the defendants may interfere with her possession and enjoyment in future, the plaintiff came forward with the suit in OS.No.260/2012 for declaration of her title and consequential injunction.

(4) The suit was contested by the defendants denying the averments made in the plaint. However, the relationship between the parties are admitted.

(5) It is the case of the defendants that the suit properties did not belong to the said Shanthamani Ammal and the Sale Deed executed by her in favour of plaintiff is fraudulent. The defendants also disputed the Settlement Deed executed by Shanthamani Ammal on 25.05.2005 in favour of the plaintiff. It is stated that the suit properties are ancestral properties of Krishnan and the document of Settlement Deed had been created by Krishnan and Shanthamani Ammal without exclusive title.

(6) The Trial Court, after framing necessary issues, decreed the suit in respect of the suit 1st item, but dismissed the suit in