Court upheld res judicata and found plaintiffs' claims invalid due to fabricated documents and maintained that the suit filed by the mother on behalf of minors was valid.

JUDGMENT

The defendants 4 to 7, 9 to 12, 14 to 18 are the appellants herein. The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.573 of 1985 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai for partition of eight cents in the suit property.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

The gist of the facts of the case are as follows:

3(a). The suit was one for partition of eight cents of property purchased by plaintiffs 1 & 2 under Ex.A2 and Ex.A4 dated 10.03.1980 and 15.03.1980 respectively, from the legal representatives of T.C.Kesavan Pillai, who was the original owner. Plaintiffs 1 & 2 were minors on the date of Suit and hence the suit was filed by their mother, the third plaintiff. The plaintiffs claimed title to the suit property under Ex.A1 and Ex.A4.

3(b). The defendants resisted the claim of the partition under multiple grounds inter alia contended that the suit is not maintainable in law. The sale deeds, viz., Ex.A2 and Ex.A4 were executed by incompetent persons and the same did not take effect. The plaintiff's vendor claimed title under one T.C.Kesava Pillai. The said T.C.Kesava Pillai executed a Possessory mortgage dated 07.12.1104 M.E. in favour of the predecessor of the defendants. The mortgage was never redeemed either by the mortgagor or his successors in interest. The right of the mortgagor has already become barred by limitation. There are two earlier suits in O.S.No.467 of 1972 and O.S.No.762 of 1970. The plaintiffs are bound by those two decrees. Therefore, the present suit is barred by res judicata. The suit property is within the jurisdiction of Sub Registrar of Kollemcode within Kanyakumari District. The sale deeds were executed in Kerala. Therefore, the documents are void. Necessary parties were not impleaded in the suit. Therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The entire property within the survey number belonging to the Nayar Tarawad was not included in the suit for partition. Therefore, the suit is bad for partial partition. The third plaintiff has no joint possession as alleged. Further, the father of minor plaintiffs 1 and 2 is the natural guardian. He is alive and is impleaded as third defendant. There is no allegation in the plaint that he has any interest adverse to that of minor, plaintiffs 1 and 2. Therefore, the suit filed by the mother on behalf of the minor children is not maintainable.

4. The trial Court has formulated necessary issues. On the side of the plaintiffs, the third plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and documents Exs.A.1 to A.23 were marked. On the side of the defendants, 9th defendant was examined as D.W.1 and documents Exs.B1 to B13 were marked.

5. The trial Court, on consideration of both oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit holding that the suit was not maintainable, bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, barred by limitation and that the suit was barred by res judicata. The trial Court also held that plaintiffs did not establish that title under Exs.A2 and A4.

6. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.573 of 1985, the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal in A.S.No.35 of 1998 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzithurai. By a judgment and decree dated 08.07.2002, the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai has reversed the judgment of the trial Court and allowed the Appeal and hence, this Second Appeal.

7. The Second Appeal was admitted. It appears that when the matter was posted for final disposal before one of the Judge of this Court, Judgment was reserved. Sub