The plaintiff, who suffered a decree before the courts below in a suit for possession, is the appellant herein.
2. On 11.10.2000, this Court, while admitting the Second Appeal, has framed the following substantial questions of law:- a) Whether courts below are right in dismissing the suit when the plaintiff has established his right and title to the property under Ex.A1 read with Ex.A5? and
b) Whether the Lower Courts are right in dismissing the suit on the ground of Non Joinder of necessary parties when matter is in controversy so far as the rights and interests of the plaintiff and defendant before it as per Order 1 Rule 9 of CPC?.
3. This case has got chequered history. The dispute originally arose between the vendor's vendor of the plaintiff and the predecessor-in-title of the respondent. Decades ago, a suit for possession has been filed by the vendor's vendor of the appellant in O.S.No.100 of 1978. It had ultimately ended as a dismissal against him in a Second Appeal before this court in S.A.No.1027 of 1980, dated 25.09.1987. Thus, the claims sought to be made by the plaintiff was already concluded against his vendor's vendor on 25.09.1987. Now, the present suit has been laid by the appellant based upon a patta.
4. When the courts below have already dismissed the suit by non-suiting the appellant on the ground of Res Judicata and binding nature of the earlier judgments, this court does not find any substantial question of law warranting interference, as it is settled law that patta, if any, will not give title, that too, against an adjudication by the Civil Court. Thus, this Court, does not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
23.01.2017 Index:Yes/No rg To
1. The Sub-Judge, Nagapattinam
2. The District Munsif, Nannilam.
M.M.SUNDRESH,J.
rg Judgment made in Second Appeal No.809 of 2000 23.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in