R.Seethammal vs Lakshmiammal

The challenge in this Appeal Suit is to the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.26/1999 on the file of the Sub-Court Sivakasi, dated 09.01.2003.

The appeal is listed under the caption ''For Dismissal''. The appellant, as the plaintiff, had filed the suit in OS.No.26 of 1999 for partition in the Sub-Court, Sivakasi. The said suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2003, declining to grant partition of the suit property, namely, 1/35th share, as sought by the plaintiff.

During the trial, it had been contended by the respondents herein that there had been an oral partition in the year 1945, which has been actually accepted in earlier litigation in OS.No.231/1960 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathur, which also was taken up in the appeal in A.S.No.106/1962 before the Sub-Court Ramanathapuram and this court had dealt with the issues in C.R.P.No.42/1963 in the said suit namely, O.S.No.23/1960, which have been filed by Ramasamy Nayakkar, who is the father of the appellant and also the father of the contesting respondent. He claimed that there had been an oral partition in the year 1945 and he further alienated the partition allotted to him through the said oral partition and this was objected to by the present contesting respondents.

However, based on the evidence of the first and fourth defendant in the suit against the appellant adduced during the trial, it had been held that the parties had accepted that there was an oral partition among the family members. It had also been found that the appellant herein had been given her share of the property by way of cash consideration and the same had been given by the Court of law. Consequently O.S.No.26/1999 was attempted to reopen the partition which had already been effected among the parties and which had been accepted by the Court. Re-litigation is not permitted and it is abuse of process of Court, since it has been very clearly held by the trial judge that the suit is barred by the principles of res-judicata. Further, the appellant has also not come forward to seriously prosecute the appeal and put forward the arguments on behalf of the appellants. Further, I find no reason to interfere with the judgement of the court below. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.