JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 08.11.1994 and made in A.S.No. 62 of 1992 on the file of the Sub-Court, Karur, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 26.02.1990 in O.S.No. 279 of 1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kulithalai.

1. Originally, one Palaniyappa Gounder filed a suit in O.S.No. 279 of 1986 before the District Munsif, Kulithalai, against one Thayarammal for declaration and consequential relief of recovery of possession, mesne profits and cost of the suit. After trial, the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court by Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.1990. Challenging the said dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff Palaniyappa Gounder filed an appeal before the Sub-Court, Karur in A.S.No. 62 of 1992. After hearing, the learned Sub Judge allowed the appeal suit and decreed the original suit. Challenging the said Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Sub Judge, Karur, dated 08.11.1994, the defendant in the said suit has filed the present second appeal raising the following substantial questions of law:

“(i) Is the learned Subordinate Judge right in invoking Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, when it is an admitted fact that the suit property was given to deceased Pappathi Ammal in lieu of her maintenance right as she had a pre-existing right of maintenance when her right got enlarged as per the provisions of Section 14(1) of Act 30 of 1956?

(ii) Is the learned Subordinate Judge right in reversing the decision without properly serving notice on the defendant?

(iii) When there is no evidence to indicate that the defendant trespassed is the learned Subordinate Judge right in granting a decree for possession?

(iv) When there is no evidence regarding division of the suit property viz., the division of 8 acres 19 cents as 4.10 acres and 4.09 acres respectively is the present suit for possession without seeking for partition is maintainable in law?

(v) When the documents produced by the defendant establish her possession over the suit property, is the learned Subordinate Judge right in holding that the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendant after filing the suit?

(vi) Is not the present suit is barred by principles of res judicata in view of the decision rendered earlier in O.S.No. 528 of 1978 wherein the vendor of the plaintiff suit for injunction against Pappathi Ammal was dismissed holding that Pappathi Ammal had right to be in possession?”

2. At the time of admission, this Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, formulated the following substantial questions of law:

“(i) Is the learned Subordinate Judge is right in invoking Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act when it is an admitted fact that the suit property was given to deceased Pappathi Ammal in lieu of her maintenance right as she had pre-existing right of maintenance when her right got enlarged as per the provisions of Section 14(1) of Act 30/56?

(ii) Is not the present suit is barred by principles of res judicata in view of the decision rendered earlier in O.S.No. 528 of 1978 wherein the vendor of the plaintiff suit for injunction against Pappathi Ammal was dismissed holding that Pappathi Ammal had right to be in possession?”

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would submit that the mother of the defendant, by name, Pappathi Ammal is the first wife of one Aruvappu Reddiar and subsequent to the suit in O.S.No. 425 of 1928, there was a panchayat and subsequent to the said panchayat, the suit property and also adjacent property of the extent totally 8 acres 19 cents were given to the said Pappathi Ammal towards maintenance and she was continued to be in possession till the defendant derived her title. Even thereafter, the vendor of the plaintiff, namely, one Ramamurthy filed a suit against the said Pappathi Ammal in O.S.No. 528 of 1978 for injunction and the said suit was dismissed upholding the rights and po