JUDGMENT

As against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the present Second Appeal is filed.

2.The brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as follows:

2.1.The plaintiff is a purchaser of the suit property by virtue of a sale deed dated 09.02.1982. There were earlier proceedings in O.S.No.191 of 1982 and O.S.No.111 of 1984, in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff, having purchased the property, could not take delivery of possession. Hence, the suit was filed for recovery of possession. The defendants filed a written statement stating that the suit in O.S.No.191 of 1982 and O.S.No.111 of 1984 were dismissed on misconstrued facts without discussing the real facts. Hence, it is the contention that the matter has not reached finality. The trial Court considering the facts, decreed the suit. The appeal filed also came to be dismissed.

3.While admitting the second appeal, the following question of law was framed:

“Whether the suit filed for recovery of possession as simpliciter is bad in law, particularly as the rights of the parties in respect of the sale deed dated 09.02.1982 has already been decided in earlier suits namely, O.S.No.191 of 1982 & O.S.No.111 of 1984?” 4.Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

5.Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in the previous judgments, title has not been decided. Therefore, without deciding the title, the plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of possession. Hence, it is his contention that unless the title is established, merely on the basis of purchase, the plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of possession.

6.Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that earlier round of litigations in respect of the same property has reached up to the Supreme Court and the matter has attained finality. The defendants have no right whatsoever in respect of the suit property. Therefore, the suit filed for recovery of possession is maintainable.

7.I have perused the entire materials available on record.

8.The first defendant in the suit has sold the property to the plaintiff on 09.02.1982. After the sale executed by him, it appears that he has filed a suit in O.S.No.111 of 1984, on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli seeking declaration to declare the sale deed as null and void. In the meantime, the defendants 4, 3 and 5, mother and sisters of the first defendant, respectively in the present suit has filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.191 of 1982. Both the suits were disposed of by means of a common judgment by the learned Sub Judge on 30.06.1986. Therefore, the main issues are whether the defendants 3 to 5 in this suit are entitled to partition of the suit property. Similarly, the sale deed dated 09.02.1982, executed by the first defendant in favour of the present plaintiff is declared to be null and void.

9.The trial Court after elaborate discussion in the previous suits found that the first defendant in the present suit is the absolute owner of the suit property, based on the document dated 04.04.1965 and dismissed the partition suit. Similarly, the suit filed by the first defendant to declare the sale deed as null and void was also dismissed. The Trial Court has recorded the finding to the effect that the allegation of fraud has not been established and dismissed.

10.It is admitted by both sides that the above judgment in O.S.No.191 of 1982 and O.S.No.111 of 1984 reached finality. The Appeal, Second Appeal and Special Leave Petition filed was also dismissed. It is also relevant to note that the defendants 1, 3 to 5 were parties in the previous proceedings. When the right and title is decided in the earlier suit and reached finality, now, the same cannot be re-agitated in the present suit. The present suit has been filed for recovery of possession immediately after the trial Court judgment in the previous suits. The entire written statement except contending that those judgments are challenged, appeals are pending, no valid defence whatsoever was plead