JUDGMENT: The appellant is the plaintiff who failed in the appeal before the first appellate Court in A.S.No.104 of 1991. 2. The appellant filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction or in the alternative for recovery of possession in the suit property from the respondents. The respondents resisted the suit on various grounds.The learned District Munsif, Vridhachalam, having analysed the evidence adduced on either side and upon hearing the arguments advanced by both counsel, decreed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for. 3. The respondents filed an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam, in A.S.No.104 of 1991, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The learned Subordinate Judge having considered the recorded evidence and upon hearing both sides, allowed the appeal with cost by setting aside the judgement and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence the above second appeal. 4. The averments in the plaint filed by the appellant/plaintiff are briefly as follows: (a) The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff’s father Michael from G.Ramakrishna Pillai by a registered sale deed dated 30.7.1953 for a valuable consideration and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same for about 28 years prior to his death. (b) Subsequently, the elder brother of the deceased Michael namely Savurimuthu was cultivating the lands on behalf of the plaintiff for about three years. After the plaintiff was married in 1958, she as well as her husband were in possession and enjoyment of the suit land. On account of floods in the nearby river in 1973, the plaintiff could not cultivate the suit land and thereupon the land was lying fallow, as a result of which thorny trees and bushes had grown in the land. However, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land for more than a statutory period and also prescribed title by adverse possession. (c) While so, the defendants have made attempts to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land by the plaintiff. If the defendants are not restrained by a decree of permanent injunction, the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Since the third third defendant claims to have purchased a portionof the suit property from the other defendants, he has been impleaded as a necessary party. If the defendants are not restrained by a decree of permanent injunction, the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Since the third third defendant claims to have purchased a portionof the suit property from the other defendants, he has been impleaded as a necessary party. The plaintiff has also prayed for an alternative relief of recovery of possession and mesne profits by way of abundant caution, as the defendants have been making attempts to tress pass into the suit land. Hence the suit. 5. The contentions of the respondents/defendants in the written statement are briefly as follows: (a) It is true that the suit property originally belonged to one Ramakrishna Pillai but on the other hand, the allegation that the plaintiff’s father purchased the suit property from Ramakrishna Pillai by a registered sale deed dated 30.7.1953 and was in possession and enjoyment of the same, is denied as false. Similarly the contention of the plaintiff that after the death of her father, her paternal uncle was cultivating the suit and on her behalf for some time and thereafter, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same, is also not true. The claim of the plaintiff that she has acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession is not true for the reason that she is not in possession of the suit land at any time. (b) The sale deed dated 30.7.1953 could not have been executed for valuable consideration and therefore, the said document had been created for the purpose of litigation. In fact, Ramakrishna Pillai executed a settlement deed dated 31.7.1950 in favour of his mother as well as to his wife Ambigaiachi and they were put in possession of the property in terms of the settlement deed. After the death of Ambigaiachi, their legal heirs filed a suit in O.S.No.625 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif, Vridhachalam against this plaintiff as sixth defendant and others in respect of the suit property and other properties and obtained a compromise decree on 8.3.1965. The plaintiff herein as sixth defendant in the said suit consented for passing of such compromise decree. Subsequently, in terms of the compromise decree, the decree holders obtained possession of the properties inclusive of this suit property on 4.5.1968 as per orders in E.P.No.420 of 1965 and continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff herein as sixth defendant in the said suit consented for passing of such compromise decree. Subsequently, in terms of the compromise decree, the decree holders obtained possession of the properties inclusive of this suit property on 4.5.1968 as per orders in E.P.No.420 of 1965 and continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. (c) The first defendant purchased item 2 of the plaint schedule properties from the decree holders in the said suit namely, Punithavathi and Sethu and their mother Ambujathachi on 4.4.1982 for a sum of Rs.2,000 by means of a registered sale deed since then he has been in possession and enjoyment in his own right. However, he also prescribed title to the said land by his continuous possession and enjoyment for more than statutory period. (d) On 12.3.1978, the second defendant purchased 16 and 1/4th cents of the western portion in the suit schedule first time and other properties from one Dakshinamurthy and his brother Gnanaprakasam, who are the legal heirs of the said Sethuammal and the eastern portion 16 and 1/4th cents is in the continuous possession of Punithavathiammal. Therefore, the suit is barred for non-joinder of the said Punithavathiammal. The plaintiff having suppressed the above state of facts, filed this suit on vexatious grounds. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. 6. On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the sale deeds dated 30.7.1953, 4.5.1972 and 12.3.1978 executed in favour of the plaintiff’s father Michael, the first defendant and the second defendant are true, valid and binding? (2)Whether the settlement deed dated 31.7.1950 executed by Ramakrishna Pillai in favour of his mother and wife is true, valid and binding? (3) Whether the first defendant acquired title to the suit properties by adverse possession? (4) Whether the suit is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties. (5) Whether the suit is barred by res judicata? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief as prayed for? 7. (3) Whether the first defendant acquired title to the suit properties by adverse possession? (4) Whether the suit is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties. (5) Whether the suit is barred by res judicata? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief as prayed for? 7. The learned District Munsif having analysed the evidence on record held on the above issues that the sale deed dated 30.7.1953 executed in favour of the plaintiff’s father Michael is true, valid and binding, that the sale deeds dated 4.5.1972, 12.3.1978 executed in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 are not true, valid and binding; that the settlement deed dated 31.7.1950 is also not true and valid;that the first defendant has not acquired any right or title to the suit properties, that the suit is not barred for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the suit is also not barred by res judicata and that therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for. 8.The learned subordinate Judge having analysed the pleadings, evidence and arguments of bothsides, framed the following points for consideration in the appeal namely, A.S.No.104 fo 1991 filed by the respondents/defendents. (1)Whether the settlement deed dated 31.7.1950 executed by Ramakrishna Pillai in favour of his mother Ambujam and wife Ambigaiachi was acted upon? (2) Whether the appellants are entitled to the relief as prayed for. 9. Having considered the materials placed before him, the learned Subordinate Judge arrived at the conclusion that the settlement deed dated 31.7.1950 executed by Ramakrishna Pillai in favour of his mother and wife was true, valid and acted upon and further, it was held that the compromise decree passed in A.S.No.625 of 1963 on the file of District Munsif, Vridhachalam, operates as res judicata for the reason that the compromise decree passed with the consent of the appellant/plaintiff herein, who is the sixth defendant in the said suit. Therefore, the learned subordinate Judge allowed appeal by setting aside the judgment decree passed by the trial Court. 10. In the above circumstances, the following questions of law were formulated for consideration: (i) Is the lower appellate Court correct and justified in reversing the decision of the trial Court and holding that the decision in O.S.No. 625 of 1963 would be res judicata and that the plaintiff is debarred from claiming title? 10. In the above circumstances, the following questions of law were formulated for consideration: (i) Is the lower appellate Court correct and justified in reversing the decision of the trial Court and holding that the decision in O.S.No. 625 of 1963 would be res judicata and that the plaintiff is debarred from claiming title? (ii) Is the lower appellate Court correct and justified in holding that the decision in O.S.No.625 of 1963 would operate as res judicata especially when the plaintiff is not a party to the compromise? (iii) Even assuming though not admitting that the settlement of the year 1950 is true, is not the plaintiff entitled to claim title by prescription especially when she is in possession for over statutory period ever since the date of sale in the year 1953? 11. Heard Mr.Maninarayanan. learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel for the respondents. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued at the outset with reference to the earlier decree in O.S.No.625 of 1963 passed by the District Munsif, Villupuram, marked as Ex.B-1, that the same is not binding on the appellant, for the simple reason that the respondents obtained the said decree behind the back of the appellant by fraud, misrepresentation and abuse of process of Court. Hence he has urged that the decree Ex.B-1 is not valid and binding, so far as the appellant is concerned. 13. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to Ex.B-1 which contains the categorical recital in the preamble of the decree to the effect that the appellant herein as the sixth defendant expressed no objection in passing the compromise decree and therefore, he has argued that the decree is valid and binding on the appellant as well. 14. He has also adverted the attention of this Court that despite the written statement filed by the respondents with the specific pleading that the compromise decree in O.S.No.625 of 1963 on the file of District Munsif, Vridhachalam, is a bar to the present suit, as it operates as res judicata, the appellant had not chosen to file any reply statement setting forth the plea of fraud, misrepresentation and abuse of process of Court. 15. 15. Similarly, he has also drawn the attention of this Court that except denial of the knowledge of the decree, Ex.B-1, the appellant as P.W.1, has not spoken to anything about the alleged fraud, misrepresentation and abuse of process of Court as set forth in the argument, now advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. It follows that the argument now put forth on behalf of the appellant is neither supported by pleadings nor corraborated by acceptable evidence. 16. On a careful perusal of the recorded evidence, in the light of the pleadings of both parties, I have no hesitation in holding that the compromise decree passed in the presence of the appellant as the sixth defendant in the suit, O.S.No.625 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif, Vridhachalam, in relation to the suit property has become final and it follows that it would operate as res judicata. In view of such finding, the question whether the settlement under Ex.B-19 dated 31.7.1950 is true and valid, does not loom large. 17. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be missed. 18. In result, the above second appeal is dismissed. But, however, there shall be no order as to costs.