The principle of res judicata bars a subsequent suit on the same matter once a decree has been conclusively decided, even if it was ex parte.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. The appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs. On being aggrieved by the rejection of their plaint pursuant to an application by the defendants filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their status and ranking in the original suit.

2. The plaint in O.S.No.134 of 2019 which is the subject matter of the appeal was filed by Mr.A.Palani Achari (deceased) and his daughter, P.Devi in respect of the property purchased by the father of the first plaintiff Angachari in the year 1956. The said Angachari died on 03/04/2000 leaving behind five sons and two daughters. O.S.No.134 of 2019 filed by Palani Achari and his daughter Devi against the other legal heirs of Angachari for partition contending that Angachari during the lifetime gifted a portion of the property measuring 2616 sq.ft in S.No.27/1B1 to his son Palani Achari (1^st plaintiff) upon which he had constructed a house and living along with his wife and daughter (2^nd Plaintiff). Thereafter, on 11/04/2019, the first plaintiff had settled the said property in favour of his daughter the second plaintiff. After the demise of Angachari, the legal heirs were peacefully enjoying the remaining portion of the property as joint family property. However on 20.07.2019, due to quarrel over a chit transaction, the 13^th defendant - Shanmugam who is one of the sons of Angachari and brothers of the plaintiff tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the portion of the property upon which the plaintiff had constructed his house. Hence, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.85/2019 before the District Munsif Court, Pappireddipatty for bare injunction. Thereafter, 13^th defendant - Shanmugam filed O.S.No.108/2019 contending that in view of misdescription of the property and in view of the civil Court decree dated 08/07/2005 in O.S.No.318 of 2000 declaring the Will of Angachari dated 01/06/1998 in favour of 13^th Defendant - Shanmugam as valid. The settlement deed of the first plaintiff in favour of the second plaintiff is null and void. Then plaintiffs came to know about the Will and the declaration decree obtained behind their back.

3. Hence, the suit O.S.No.134/2019 to: (i) divide the suit property by metes and bound and allot 1/8^th share to the plaintiff. (ii) declare the Will dated 01/06/1998 alleged to have been executed by Angachari as null and void and (iii) to cancel the decree passed in O.S.No.318/2000 as collusive and voidable.

4. Shanmugam/the 13^th Defendant, besides filing written statement along with the defendants 1 to 4, had also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit in O.S.No.134 of 2019 is barred by law, in view of the decree passed in O.S.No.318 of 2000 by the District Munsif Court, Harur on 08/07/2005, which was confirmed by Sub- Court, Harur in A.S.No.14 of 2009 on 23/03/2011. The earlier suit was in respect of the same property and parties are almost same. The first plaintiff in this suit was the second defendant in the earlier suit in O.S.No.318/2000. He know about the Will executed by Angachari in favour of Shanmugam (fifth petitioner/13^th defendant) and remained exparte with knowledge. The bare injunction suit O.S.No.85/2019 filed by the plaintiffs was stayed by High Court on 27/08/2019 in C.M.P.No.18338/2019 in C.R.P.No.2801/2019. He