JU D G M E N T

This appeal is directed against order dated 11.01.1999 made in

O.S.No.22 of 1996 on the file of the Family Court, Pondicherry.

For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs filed the suit for setting aside the judgment and decreetal order dated 26.6.95 in

O.S.No.26/94 on the file of the Family Court at Pondicherry.

3. The plaintiffs averred that the defendants have filed the suit against one deceased Ranganathan, the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of the other plaintiffs 2 to 6 herein in O.S.No.26/94 on the file of this Court claiming for maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month and also creating charge over the B Schedule Property and in the said suit, the deceased Shanemougame @ Ranganathan had filed his written statement, in which, he clearly stated that the first defendant is not his wife and the second defendant is not born to him through the first defendant and he also completely denied any kind of marriage or wedlock with the first defendant and also stated that he is not under any legal or moral duty to maintain the defendants therein.

4. The plaintiffs submitted that the deceased Shanmougame @

Ranganathan had already married the first plaintiff herein according to Hindu rites and customs at Mannadipet and the marriage was registered in Etat Civil Office, Mannadipet Commune Panchayat, Pondicherry and out of the said wedlock the plaintiffs 2 to 6 were born, and their birth were also duly registered in the office of the Mannadipet Commune Panchayat, Pondicherry and therefore the allegations made by the defendants herein in O.S.No.26/94 that the first defendant was legally wedded wife of the deceased Ranganathan by virtue of the marriage solemnized on 19.6.1968 at Mannadipet and three children were born in wedlock are utter falsehood and there is no iota of evidence to such allegations.

5. The plaintiffs further submitted that the second defendant became major and she was already given in marriage to one Kuppusamy of Sompet colony and a male child by name Mohanapriyan was born to them. The said fact was also suppressed by the defendants in O.S.No.26/94 and hence, both the defendants are not entitled to any relief including the relief of maintenance.

6. The plaintiffs further averred that subsequent to the filing of the written statement in O.S.No.26/94 they came to know that the defendant have no case at all and they had taken advantage of the old age and drinking habit of the deceased Shanmougame @ Ranganathan, made him to consume alcohol and obtained his signature in the compromise memo and filed it before the concerned Court and got a decree in their favour. The above decree was obtained by fraud, coercion and undue influence. The plaintiffs were not aware of the proceedings in O.S.No.26/94 till the receipt of the Court notice in E.A.No.6/96 i.e. E.P.No.17/95, filed for impleading them as proposed parties after the death of Shanmougame @Ranganathan. Even though they were not aware of the grounds on which the defendants have filed the earlier suit in O.S.No.26/94 and also the contents of the judgment and decree passed on 26.06.1995. Subsequently, they came to know from reliable source that the defendants have obtained judgment and decree against the deceased Shanmougame @ Ranganathan by fraud, coercion and undue influence and only thereafter they obtained the certified copies of the judgment and decree dated 26.6.95 in O.S.No.26/94 on 26.4.96 and also certified copies of plaint and written statement and approached their counsel on 27.4.96 and came to know the entire matter and the contents of the judgment and decree and was fully convinced with knowledge and ascertained the facts that the defendants herein obtained the judgment and decree in O.S.No.26/94 by fraud, coercion and undue influence. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.26/94

da