Res judicata prohibits a party from relitigating issues already settled; prior compromise agreements must be fully disclosed in subsequent claims.

JUDGMENT

This appeal arises out of the concurrent findings rendered by the Addl. Munsiff Court - II, Kozhikode in O.S. No. 950 of 2001 and that of the III^rd Addl. Sub Court, Kozhikode in A.S. No. 37 of 2011.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

2.1. The appellant instituted the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties. The plaint schedule properties originally belonged to Mamiyil Tarwadu. One of the members of the family instituted O.S. No. 30 of 1965 for partition of the joint family property and the matter was settled between the parties and the plaint schedule properties were set apart to the share of Mamiyil Balan branch family. In 1967, Mamiyil Balan died and accordingly, the share devolved upon his three children Jayaprakashan, plaintiff, the 1^st defendant and his widow Padmini. Subsequently, Jayaprakashan died issueless ad thereafter Padmini, the wife of Mamiyil Balan died, and their shares devolved upon the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, according to the plaintiff, he is entitled to get 4/12 shares and the defendant is entitled to 8/12 shares. The plaintiff though requested for partition of the plaint schedule property, the same was refused and hence the suit.

2.2. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek partition of the plaint schedule property. It is true that the plaint schedule property along with other properties was set apart to the share of Mamiyil Balan and after the death of Mamiyil Balan in 1967, his 1/3 share in the family property devolved upon his wife, the plaintiff, defendant and his son late Jayaprakashan equally. When Jayaprakashan died in the year 1983, his fractional right over the plaint schedule property devolved upon his mother. The plaintiff had instituted an earlier suit for partition as O.S. No. 287 of 1996 seeking partition of 10 items of property. The plaint schedule property were Items Nos. 3 to 5 in the suit and the said suit was settled in the Neethi Mela and only Item no. 1 of the plaint schedule property was found to be liable for partition and accordingly a decree on terms was passed and, hence, the present suit is bad by rule of estoppel.

2.3. On behalf of plaintiff, Exts. A1 to A4 documents were produced and PW1 was examined and on behalf of defendants, Exts. B1 to B14 were produced and DW1 and DW2 were examined.

2.4. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was bound by the compromise decree in O.S. No. 287 of 1996 and he is estopped from seeking partition of the plaint schedule property and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No 37 of 2011 which was also dismissed by the Sub Court, Kozhikode by judgment dated 20.11.2013 and, hence, this appeal.

3. Heard Sri. S. V. Balakrishna Iyer, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assisted by Sri. P. Subramanyan, Sri. P. A. Harish, the learned Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent and Sri. K. M. Firoz, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 8 to 12.

4. On admitting the appeal on 11.02.2014, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law as framed in the memorandum of appeal;

“(A) When the present suit properties are not shown to be scheduled to the plaint in the prior suit for partition, is it legal or proper to hold that the Plaintiff is disentitled to relief on the principle of estoppel on account of the prior litigation?

(D) As the rights of the mother, Padmini, in various items of properties are not lost on account of the compromise in O.S. No. 287 of 1996, is not the Plaintiff entitled to claim a share as her legal representat