The central legal point established is that the compromise decree recognized Rangammal's entitlement to the property, making her the absolute owner, and on her death, her legal representatives would get an equal share.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.151 of 1997 on the file of the I Additional District Court -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Coimbatore, reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.332 of 1987 dated 31.01.1997 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.)

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.332 of 1987 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, was the appellant herein.

2. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died and her legal representatives had been brought on record as 2nd to 6th appellants.

3. O.S.No.332 of 1987 had been filed by Renganayaki originally against her brother Narayanasamy and against Kannammal, the widow of her another brother Natarajan and also against the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Housing Scheme No.III, Coimbatore, seeking declaration that she was legal representative of her late mother Rangammal and entitled to a share in the property left behind by Rangammal and in consequence thereof for permanent injunction.

4. By judgment dated 31.01.1997, the III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, decreed the suit. Pending the suit, the 1st defendant Narayanasamy had died and his legal representatives had been brought on record as 4th to 9th defendants. Questioning the judgment of the Trial Court, the 4th defendant, Ammayiammal wife of Narayanasamy filed A.S.No.151 of 1997 before the I Additional District Court / Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Coimbatore. By judgment dated 26.02.1999, the appeal suit was allowed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside, which indicated that the suit in O.S.No.332 of 1987 was dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by that judgment, the plaintiff, Renganayaki filed the present Second Appeal. Pending the Second Appeal, the 1st respondent, Ammayiammal died, but her legal representatives were already on record as 4th to 8th respondents. The 2nd respondent Kannammal also died and that was also recorded.

6. The Second Appeal had been admitted on the following two substantial questions of law on 17.04.2001.

“1. Whether in law the Lower Appellate Court erred in holding that Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, would not apply to the case on hand overlooking that the appellant's mother on her own funds, acquired the suit property, the possession of which was given to her back even after the execution of Settlement Deed and passing of Decree in O.S.No.197/46 and therefore her estate got blossomed into full ownership as laid down in the dictum reported in AIR 1996 Mad 436, 1991 III CCC 157 and 1993 I CCC 479.

2. Whether in law the Lower Appellate Court erred in holding that the appellants claim can only be considered by the Tahsildar in application filed under Land Acquisition Act overlooking that the question of declaration declaring the appellant's status as legal representative of her mother could only be decided by way of suit.”

7. Subsequently, by order dated 15.04.2019, the following three additional substantial question of law had been framed:-

“1. Whether in law the Lower Appellate Court erred in overlooking that the compromise decree in O.S.No.107 of 1946 is non est in the eye of law, in view of the fact that the same was not registered as per the judgment reported in 1995 5 SCC 709?

2. Whether in law the Lower Appellate Court erred in overlooking that the compromise decree is collusive, as it was with a view to defeat the right of others who had bonafide claim over the property?

3. Whether in law the Lower Appellate Court erred in overlooking that when the first clause in the compromise decree granting absolute estate, the second clause restricting it or contrary to the same and being repugnant is not enforceable and operative?”

O.S. No. 332 of 1987 (III Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore):

8. The suit was originally filed by Renganayaki against her brother Narayanasamy and Kannammal, the widow of her a