The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court affirmed the principle of res judicata, holding that the matter directly and substantially in issue in the present suit was directly and substantially in issue in a previous suit between the same parties, and therefore, the present suit was barred by res judicata.

1. We are seized of the appeal, having been referred to us by a Division Bench.

2. The short question arising for consideration is whether Ext. B20 judgment dated 22-3-1971 operates as res judicata, debarring the appellant from maintaining the suit, O.S. No. 6 of 1975 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Lakshadweep, Kavarathi from which the above appeal arises. The suit is by the Karanavan of Kadapurath Illom Tharwad (for short the tharwad) on his behalf and on behalf of tharwad for recovery of possession of plaint A schedule property with mesne profits past and future, and for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 10 from tress passing upon plaint-B schedule property and plucking the coconuts from the trees standing thereon or alternatively, if it is found that the B schedule property in its entirety or any portion thereof is in the possession of defendants 1 to 10, to have the same recovered with mesne profits.

3. A resume of facts relevant lies in a narrow compass. The plaintiff's tharwad, it is alleged, is the reversionary heir of Palamkakkada tharwad of which the father of defendants 1 to 5 was the sole surviving member. The tharwad rests the above claim on Attaladakam right, a customary right said to be enjoyed by the tharwad.

4. The father of defendants 1 to S, Muhammed, executed a gift deed Ext.A25 dated 24-8-1961 bequeathing his rights over the plaint properties to his children defendants 1 to 5, the validity of which was directly challenged in O.S.No. 47 of 1969 disposing of which, Ext.B20 judgment was delivered. The said suit was instituted by the plaintiff (appellant herein) as the power of attorney holder of the Karanavan and on behalf of the tharwad. In the said suit the court settled numerous issues including the following:

(1) Whether by reason of the judgment in C.S.50/1923 of Kavaratti Amin's Court, the defendant is barred by resjudicata from contending that the suit properties belong to his tharwad exclusively and not plaintiff's tharwad?

(2) Whether the gift deed dated 24-8-1961 executed by the defendant is valid and binding upon the plaintiff?

(3) Whether the suit as brought is maintainable?

(4) Whether the plaintiff has any right to the suit properties?

(5) Whether the plaintiff has a subsisting right of attaladakkam to the properties mentioned in the plaint?

5. Regarding the first issue the court found that the decision in C.S.50/1923 (the judgment is marked as Ext. Al (a) in the present suit) will not operate as res judicata debarring the father of defendants 1 to 5, Muhammed from agitating his rights over the properties. Considering the attaladakkam right claimed by the tharwad, the court found that "the tharwad could not set up any attaladakkam right over the properties mentioned and possessed by Palamkakkada tharwad" of which the father of defendants 1 to 5 was the last surviving member. The court therefore held that the tharwad cannot question the right of Muhammed, the sole surviving member of Palamkakkada tharwad to execute the gift deed. The issue relating to the maintainability of the suit was disposed of holding that the suit was not maintainable because it was premature. It was also held that the power of attorney enabling the present plaintiff to file the suit, could not confer any valid right in favour of the junior member because the tharwad at the relevant time had no right over the properties.

6. Ext. B20 judgment was challenged in appeal before this court as A.S.No. 366/1971. This court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. (Ext. B22, dated 26-2-1975).

7. It can thus be seen from Ext. B20 judgment that there is a clear decision against Kadapurath tharwad that the tharwad has no attaladakkam right over the properties in question. The gift deed executed by Muhammed, father of defendants 1 to 5 in the present suit, was held to be valid and hence unimpeachable. It is true that the court had also found that the suit was premature. Not only that, there is yet another finding th