The principle of res judicata applies where earlier proceedings settled the property rights, barring a subsequent claim based on the same issues.

JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. This Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.1187 of 2005, assailing the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2013 passed in A.S. No.13 of 2010 by the Principal Sub Judge, Puducherry, whereby the judgment and decree of dismissal dated 15.09.2009 made in O.S. No.1187 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Puducherry, came to be confirmed.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The plaintiff filed this suit seeking partition and separate possession of his ½ share in the plaint schedule property, along with mesne profits. He contends that the plaint schedule property is a strip of manai land located on the northern side of the “A” schedule property, which was allegedly left out of the registered partition deed dated 20.03.1971 executed between his father and the 1st defendant’s husband, (who were brothers). Hence, he claims it still remains undivided joint family property and is liable to be partitioned.

5. The defendants denied the plaintiff’s claim. They said the registered partition deed dated 20.03.1971 had already fully and finally divided all the joint family properties. They also argued that this very issue had already been decided in earlier cases.

6. According to them, Ganesan, the 1st defendant’s husband and father of the other defendants, had earlier filed O.S. No.793 of 1978 for measurement and allotment as per the partition deed. Although that suit was dismissed, A.S. No.107 of 1981 was allowed in his favour, and later S.A. No.701 of 1986 was dismissed, confirming the allotment. After that, execution proceedings were taken in E.P. No.155 of 2000, and delivery was ordered. Even the plaintiff’s side filed C.R.P. No.2049 of 2001, which was also dismissed.

7. Therefore, the defendants said the present suit is not maintainable because it is barred by res judicata, since the matter has already been finally decided.

8. The Trial Court after considering the partition deed and the measurement/commissioner materials relied upon by the plaintiff, held that the plaintiff failed to prove the suit strip as a distinct “left out” joint family property and found that the alleged strip lies within the ‘A’ schedule boundaries, wherein boundaries prevail over extent; noting that identical objections were earlier negatived in S.A. No.701 of 1986 and C.R.P. No.2049 of 2001; it dismissed the suit holding that the claim for partition is barred by res judicata.

9. The First Appellate Court, while confirming the decree of the Trial Court, held that the appellant/plaintiff, though claiming ½ share in the property referred to in the Advocate Commissioner’s report, had not produced any document to establish that the plaint schedule property is ancestral/joint family property; it further held that the registered partition deed dated 20.03.1971 (Ex.A9) is binding on the parties and, as the plaint schedule property is not shown to be part of the properties available for partition under Ex.A9, the plaintiff is not entitled to any share.

10. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred the second appeal contending that the courts below failed to decide whether the plaint schedule strip was left out of, and not covered by, the partition deed dated 20.03.1971. The plaintiff further argues that the courts wrongly ignored the Advocate Commissioner’s report. The plaintiff also submits that the suit should not have been dismissed on the ground of res judicata based on the earlier