G. Jayachandran, J.

Short but very interesting point involved in the present second appeal is whether an ex parte decree passed after completion of pleading would constitute res judicata and whether such a decree can be challenged in an separate suit on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation.

2. The brief facts involved in this case is as follows :-

The admitted facts in this case is that while Perumal has purchased property covered in S.No.154/1 at Sivadapuram Village, Salem Taluk in the year 1969 vide Ex.A1, the respondents herein had purchased the property falling under S.No.154/2 in the year 1980, for the property in dispute earlier OS.No.233 of 1992 was filed by Rathinammal and ex parte decree in her favour was passed.

3. The plaintiffs who are wife, daughter and son of one Perumal, have filed the suit which is the subject matter of the present appeal claiming that the ex parte decree passed in OS.No.233 of 1992 is vitiated by fraud, suppression of facts and misrepresentation.

Admittedly, the earlier suit in OS.No.233 of 1992 filed by the first respondent herein against one Perumal who is the husband and father of the present appellants, was contested by Perumal by fil