A final and conclusive judgment in a connected suit involving the same issues and parties bars a subsequent suit or appeal on the same issues under the principle of res judicata.

1. Defendants is O.S.No.430 of 1979 on the file of District Munsif, Manamadurai, are the appellants.

2. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was one for declaration that they are entitled to the scheduled properties and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiffs also prayed for a declaration that the sale deeds executed by them in favour of the appellants in 16. 1979 are sham and nominal and the same does not convey any title. It is alleged that the appellants and their father are doing commission business at Vridhunagar and in the course of that business, the plaintiffs also got acquainted with them, that during the course of transactions, they had to execute two sale deeds in favour of the appellants, which, according to them, are sham and nominal and they continued to be in their possession and enjoyment.

3. In the written statement filed by the appellants, they disputed the claim put forward by the plaintiffs and said that the documents in their favour had come into effect and they are the title holders thereof. It is also said that they were one for consideration and the recitals contained in those documents are valid. The plaintiffs/executants of the documents, are not entitled to contend against the terms of the same as it is barred by section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. They prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

4. Along with the suit filed by the plaintiffs, the 2nd defendant/2nd appellant filed O.S.No.55 of 1980 for declaration that they are entitled to the properties and the documents executed by the plaintiffs had come into effect and for a consequential injunction.

5. Since the pleadings and defence are common, the same is not restated.

6. The trial court, after recording evidence, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion, that the plaintiffs/respondents herein are absolute owners of the properties and the sale deeds executed by them were sham and nominal, and the plaintiffs title was declared. The documents, which were so declared are Exs: B-4 and B-5.

7. As I have said already, O.S.No.55 of 1980 was also jointly tried along with O.S.No.430 of 1979. The suit filed by the 2nd appellant was dismissed holding that they have no title to the properties.

8. The matter was taken in appeal before the lower appellate court as A.S.Nos.129 of 1981 and 24 of 1982. Both the appeals were clubbed together and the lower appellate court also affirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeals.

9. Against the judgment in A.S.No.24 of 1982, the present second appeal is filed.

10. The following substantial questions of law are framed at the time of admission.

1. Whether any oral evidence is admissible as against the recitals in the registered sale deeds Exs: B-4 and B-5 under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act?

2. Whether the recitals in Exs. B-4 and B-5 sale deeds should not be looked into while considering these documents, a sham and nominal?

11. When the matter was being heard, counsel for the respondents submitted that the second appeal is not maintainable, since there is no appeal against the connected judgment A.S.No.129 of 1981 and when that has become final, this second appeal is barred by res judicata.

12. I find force in the said contention and I feel that the preliminary objection raised by the respondents, has to be accepted.

13. In Deva Ram v. Ishwar Chand, 1995 (6) SCC 733 the Supreme Court has held that, Section II contains the rule of conclusiveness of the judgment which is based partly on the maxim of Roman Jurisprudence "Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" (it concerns the State and there by an end to law suits) and partly on the maxim "Nemo debet bis vexari pro una at eadem causa" (no man should be vexed twice over for the same cause). The section does not affect the jurisdiction of the court but operates as