Res-Judicata bars further claims on property title following previous judgments regarding the same property.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree in O.S No.21/2016 by the Munsiff Court, Manjeri, confirmed by the District Court in A.S No.46/2020. The appellants/ plaintiffs sought for declaration title over 1/5^th share of Meenakshiamma over the plaint schedule property by virtue of assignment deed executed by the son of late Meenakshiamma as Power of Attroney on 28.02.1987. O.S No.98/1988 was preferred by the 1^st respondent herein for partition of the very same property. In the said suit, the father of appellants 1 to 3 late Abdul Hameed was the 5^th defendant. It was contented that in the light of the registered assignment deed No.760 of 1987 dated 28.02.1987, the plaintiffs therein had no right to seek for partition of the plaint schedule property. Rejecting the contention, the suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 02.03.1991. Later after the death of their father, plaintiffs 1 to 3 preferred A.S No.55/1988, challenging the judgment and decree in O.S No.98/1988, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the 1^st respondent herein No.173/2012 seeking for partition of 1/5^th share of the property, which was dismissed on the ground that the sale is barred by Res-Judicata, in view of the judgment and decree in O.S No.98/1988, the matter was left as such. In 2016, the appellants herein preferred the present suit O.S No.21/2016 seeking a declaration of title that they are entitled to hold, 1/5^th share of late Meenakshiamma. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the same is barred by Res-Judicata, in view of the findings in O.S No.98/1988. Considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the trial court came to conclusion that the present suit is barred Res-Judicata. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred A.S No.46/2020, which was dismissed on 25.02.2023 and hence the appeal.

3. Heard Shri.V.V.surendran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent and Shri.B.G.Bhaskar, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 11.

4. Shri.V.V.surendran, the learned counsel for the appellants would contend that inasmuch as the son of late Meenakshiamma had sold the property by virtue of Power of Attorney executed by Meenakshiamma in favour of the defendants' father Abdul Hameed, they are entitled to hold the share of Meenakshiamma. The dismissal of O.S No.173/2012 on being barred by Res-Judicata is wrong. It is further submitted that, even if the assignment deed dated 28.02.1987 is found to be invalid, the plaintiffs are still entitled to 1/5th share of Meenakshiamma, because the same has been sold by the 3^rd respondent herein, Sivasankaran Nair, in pursuance to the Power of Attorney executed by the his mother late Meenakshiamma.

5. Per contra, Shri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent would contend that the validity of the assignment deed dated 28.02.1987, has been found against late Abdul Hameed the predecessor of appellants 1 to 3 herein. Despite the assignment deed, by judgment and decree dated 02.03.1991, the Munsiff Court had decreed the suit, holding that Meenakshiamma was entitled to 1/5^th share in the plaint schedule property. Subsequent to the dismissal of O.S No.173/2012, the 1/5^th share of late Meenakshiamma has been partitioned among the legal heirs. Therefore, the plaintiffs/appellants have no right title and interest over the plaint schedule property requiring any declaration.

6. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar, perused the judgments rendered by the courts below and also the judgments and decree in O.S No.98/1988 and O.S No.173/2012.

7. On consideration of the submissions, this Court is of