The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to file an appeal against a judgment and decree in a connected suit, which was confirmed in appeal, can bar subsequent appeals by res judicata.

P. Bhavadasan, J.

Three suits, i.e. O.S. Nos. 261 and 724 of 1982 and O.S.193 of 1983 before the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha were jointly tried and disposed of by a common judgment. O.S. 261 of 1982 was filed by the respondents herein while the other two suits were filed by the appellant. The appellant's suits were dismissed and respondents' suit was decreed. The appellant preferred first appeals before the lower appellate court, which confirmed the judgment and decree of the court below.

2. O.S. 261 of 1982 is treated as the leading case and the parties and facts are referred to as they are available in the said suit.

3. The facts are as follows: All the three suits were for permanent prohibitory injunction. The plaint schedule property in O.S. 261 of 1992 has an extent of about four acres and is a garden land and paddy field. They are in Sy. Nos. 68/12A and 12B, i.e. 1.27 acres comprised in Sy. No.68/12A and 2.73 acres comprised in Sy. No.68/12B. The properties were initially owned by the predecessors-in-interest of defendants 2 to 5 in O.S. 261 of 1982. The properties were brought to sale in court auction in execution of the decree in O.S. 171 of 1094 M.E. of Munsiff's court, Alappuzha. One Neelakanta Iyyer Subramaniya Iyyer bid the property and the sale was confirmed in his favour and possession was taken. The plaintiff and their predecessor in interest took the property on lease from Neelakanta Iyyer Subramniya Iyyer. Ever since then, they are in actual possession and enjoyment of the property. They have obtained purchase certificates also. In the purchase certificates, some of the defendants were made parties. Even though they raised strong objection, that was rejected and purchase certificate was issued. Later, the defendants trespassed into the property and put up a shed therein. They have no manner of right over the suit property. So suits for prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction were laid.

4. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 contested the suit. According to them, their predecessors in interest were the owners of the property. Even though the property was brought to sale and sold, no delivery was taken by the auction purchaser. The property continued to be in the possession and enjoyment of the defendants and their predecessors in interest. The order in O.A. is not binding on them. These defendants are not parties to the O.A. The second defendant has been in possession of the property for a long time and has been residing there for more than 70 years. Neither the plaintiff nor the first defendant have ever obtained possession of the suit property. They therefore prayed for a dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial court raised necessary issues for consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the documents marked as Exts. A1 to A14. The contesting defendants had D.Ws. 1 to 3 examined and Exts.B1 to B9 marked. Exts. C1 to C3 are the commission report and plan, and C.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined as court witnesses.

6. The trial court found that as per Ext.A1 judgment dated 27.1.1960 Neelakanta Iyyer Subramania Iyyer had obtained delivery and possession of the property and thereafter the defendants have never been in possession of the property. On the basis of the above findings, O.S. 261 of 1982 was decreed and the other two suits were dismissed. The trial court after consideration of the materials before it came to the following findings:

"In the result, O.S. 261 of 1982 is decreed restraining the defendants two to four from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from taking usufructs therefrom. The Receiver appointed in O.S. 193 of 1983 is directed to surrender the possession of the property concerned to the plaintiffs in O.S. 261 of 1982 after complying with all the legal formalities. The suits O.S. 724 of 1982 and O.S. 193 of 1983 are dismissed. The parties in all the suits are directed to bear their respective costs."

7. The defendants, who suffered a decree in O.S. 261 of 1982, and