1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

2. Facts as averred in the affidavit filed in support of writ petition are as under:

2.1 The Petitioner submits that he is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land ad measuring Ac.1.00 in Survey No. 435/1 Part, situated at Gundlapochampally village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal District (suit scheduled property) and had acquired the same under a registered gift deed dated 23.05.2002 from his father-in-law who was the Pattedar and possessor of the above described suit schedule property. The Mandal Revenue Officer has mutated the petitioners name in the revenue records after due enquiry. He has also taken permission from the Gram Panchayat to construct boundary wall. Respondents 2 to 4 have tried to illegally interfere in the suit schedule property on 01.11.2013 and on the said incident complained of committing crime under Section 427 of IPC was reported to the Petbasheerabad Police Station and the same is pending. It is further alleged that respondents 2 to 4 again on 18.01.2014 tried to obstruct the construction of the compound wall and keeping in mind the above two incidents suit for perpetual injunction was filed by the Petitioner against Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The Honourable court granted the ad interim Injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the Petitioner over the suit schedule property. CMA filed before XVI Additional District Judge, was rejected.

2.2 While so, respondents 3 and 4 (sons of Respondent No 2) filed O.S. No. 81 of 2018 praying to grant perpetual Injunction against the Petitioner claiming that Respondent No. 3 is the owner and possessor of land ad measuring 0.11gts in Survey No. 435/2 situated at Gundlapochampally village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal District (schedule A property) and Respondent 4 is the absolute owner and possessor of land ad measuring 0.11 in Survey No. 435/2 situated at Gundlapochampally village, Medchal mandal, Medchal District (schedule B property). Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 claim to have acquired the same vide registered gift deed dated 17.05.2013 from their father. After obtaining possession, names of the Respondents were mutated in the revenue records vide proceedings dated 04.03.2013. Respondent 4 has also obtained trade license to run a bakery in the schedule B premises and is paying regular electricity charges. There also exists grass for feeding buffaloes in schedule B property. Suit schedule properties A and B are situated adjacent to each other. It is alleged that petitioner is interfering illegally with schedule A and B properties along with henchmen on several occasions and on 08.03.2018 has tried to dispossess Respondents No. 3 and 4. In lieu of the above incidents Respondent Nos. 3 to 4 filed the said suit.

3. This writ petition is filed praying to issue writ of mandamus and praying to declare that O.S. No. 81 of 2018 on the file of Court of Junior Civil Judge at Medchal, Ranga Reddy district is not maintainable as it attracts principle of res judicata under Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in view of pendency of O.S. No. 11 of 2014 on the file of the same Court i.e. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Court at Medchal, concerning same property.

4. On scrutiny, office raised objection on maintainability of the writ petition. Learned counsel for petitioner replied to the office stating that writ petition is maintainable to hold that subsequent suit is hit by the principle of res judicata and placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Daryao and Others vs. State of U.P. and requested Registry to list the writ petition before the Court.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the second suit instituted by the unofficial respondents herein concern the same property on which petitioner filed O.S. No. 11 of 2014 and unofficial respondents are defendants in the said suit, therefore, unofficial respondent could not have instituted another suit claiming to grant injunction agai