- (1.) The plaintiff who has failed before the courts below has preferred this Second Appeal.
(2.) The gist of the case is as follows:- The suit property originally belonged to one Chinnanna Aachari. He mortgaged the same on 1.3.1938 under Ex.A.1 o one Venkatarama Chetty and he did not redeemed the property. Venkataraman Chetty had three sons namely Palanisamy, Duraisamy and Kuppusamy. All were residing as a Hindu joint family. Palanisamy is the first defendant. The plaintiff are the sons of Duraisamy. The defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of Kuppusamy. According to the plaintiffs, after the death of Vnnkataraman Chetty the property devolves on the family members equally. Palanisamy being the elder son denied title of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs by birth as co parceners obtain the /29th share right to the property. Hence the suit for partition and other reliefs.
(3.) The first defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by defendants 5 to 8 contending that the plaintiffs have suppressed the earlier litigations and have come to the court with unclean hands. The first defendant by sale deed dated 24.11.1941 redeemed the property from the mortgagor Chinnanna Aachari for a sale consideration of Rs. 1500/= and he is the absolute owner of the suit property. The second defendant instigated his sons to file the suit and the plaintiffs have no right over the property. The suit filed in O.S.2/68 for partitio of 2/3 share by Duraisamy and Kuppusamy has been dismissed and the appeal filed against the same has also been dismissed. Subsequently the first defendant filed O.S.636 of 1974 to take possession of the property and obtained a decree. Against the same the plaintiffs preferred appeal in A.S.1008/77 and the S.A.No:46/76 before the High Court have been dismissed. Thus the plaintiffs' case is hit by the principle of res judicata.;