The principle of res judicata applies when the decisions in related suits have attained finality, and failure to challenge those decisions precludes further litigation.

V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. A suit in O.S.No.368 of 1991 was filed under Section 92 CPC, seeking the framing of a Scheme in respect of a Trust known as Karur Vanniya Chettiar Public Charitable Trust and for various other reliefs, on the file of the Sub Court, Karur, by a group of seven persons, claiming to be the members of Board of Trustees. When the suit was pending, the first defendant in the aforesaid suit, filed a suit in O.S.No.270 of 1992 against the plaintiffs in the first suit, seeking a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the administration of the aforesaid Trust.

2. Simultaneously, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the first suit viz., O.S. No.368 of 1991 also filed another suit in O.S.No.271 of 1992, seeking a decree of permanent injunction, against the first defendant in the previous suit. Again, the plaintiffs in the first suit also filed another suit in O.S.No.217 of 1993 against the defendants in the earliest suit, seeking a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants therein, from altering the physical features of the suit properties. Closely on the heals of the aforesaid suit, the first defendant in the earliest suit moved a suit in O.S.No.218 of 1993 against the plaintiffs in the earliest suit, seeking a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the Management of the Kalyana Mandapam belonging to the Trust.

3. All the above five suits were tried together by the Sub Court and ultimately, by a common judgment and decree, dated 24. 1996, the Sub Court framed a Scheme for the administration of the Trust by passing a decree in O.S.No.368 of 1991. But the trial court dismissed all the other four suits.

4. Aggrieved by the Scheme so framed, the defendants in O.S.No.368 of 1991 have come up with the appeal A.S.No.524 of 1996. Similarly, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.368 of 1991 have come up A.S.No.657 of 1997, on the short ground that while framing the Scheme, the Trial Court ought to have removed the defendants from the Trusteeship. No appeals have been filed by any of the parties, as against the dismissal of the other four suits.

5. We have heard Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in A.S.No.524 of 1996 and the respondents in A.S.No.657 of 1997, Mr.D.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in A.S.No.524 of 1996 and Mr.S.M.Loganathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in A.S.No.657 of 1997.

6. Factual details of the dispute between the parties may not be of relevance any longer in view of the fact that five suits were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment, but the parties have chosen to come up with the appeals against the judgment in one suit only. Therefore the present appeals, in our view, may be barred by res judicata.

7. In order to appreciate the bar of res judicata, it may be necessary to have a look at the prayers made and the issues framed in all the five suits. They are presented in the form of a Tabular Statement as follows:-

Suit No.

Relief Prayed For

Issues Framed

O.S.No.368 of 1991

To frame a Scheme to set right the Management of Karur Vaniya Chettiar Public Charitable Trust, under Section 92 CPC.

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to have a Scheme framed for the management of the Trust property?

2. Whether the first defendant is liable to hand over the books, accounts, receipts and other papers of the Trust, to the plaintiffs?

3. Whether the first defendant is responsible for maintenance of accounts?

4. Whether the first defendant is responsible for the omissions and commissions of the Trust?

5. Whether the first defendant has to be removed from the administration of the Trust?

6. Whether the suit is wrongly instituted?

7. Whether the suit is instituted by the elected representatives?

8. To what reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to?

O.S.No.270 of 1992

For a Permanent Injunction, restraining the defe