JUDGMENT :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 05.02.2019 passed in O.S. No. 25 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Thoothukudi.

1. A challenge has been made in this first appeal against the decree and judgment of the trial Court, dismissing the suit in a preliminary issue holding that the present suit is barred by principles of res-judicata.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal suit is as follows:

The suit property to an extent of 1.15 acres has been originally purchased by Thomas Adamsan Iyar for the Society for the Propagation of the Gospal in Foreign Parts (S.P.G.) on 06.01.1880. The original survey number of the suit property is 226. Thereafter, the survey number of the suit property is 243/2 and now the survey numbers of the suit property are 328/4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. The plaintiffs Diocese obtained necessary permission with the Bhisop in the year 1929 and the Church was constructed in the suit property. On 04.12.1963, the suit property was transferred to the plaintiffs. From the date of such deed, they are in possession of the property and now, it is the control of Churches of South India Trust Association (CSITA) Thoothukudi-Nazereth Diocese. When the matter stood thus, few years back, the first defendant belonging to the Hindu Community with the help of his majority people, trespassed into the Item Nos. 6 and 7 of the suit property and encroached to an extent of 12 cents. Out of which, they put up one Karupasamy Temple in 2 cents and in the remaining 10 cents, they put up one Pillaiyar Temple. Despite several requests have been made by the plaintiffs Diocese for recovery of possession and removal of encroachment, the defendants refused the same. When the plaintiffs applying the copy of the settlement proceedings, on 17.03.2014, they came to know that in the year 1958 itself the property has been sub-divided and the property has been classified as defendants' property. Hence, the settlement effected is null and void. The defendants 1 to 7 obtained the Patta by false representation. Besides that, they also made an attempt to prevent the plaintiffs and his men from approaching the Church. Hence, the suit in O.S. No. 25 of 2014 has been filed for declaration in respect of Item Nos. 1 to 7 and declare that classification of settlement records is null and void, sought injunction in respect of 5th item of the suit property and also recovery of possession in respect of 6th and 7th items of the property, after removal of encroachment.

3. Denying the allegations, it is the contention of the defendants that the survey number mentioned in the plaint is not correct. Originally, the survey number of the suit property is Jameen Adangal Survey No. 8. During settlement proceedings, it classified as 243/2. The sale deed dated 06.01.1880 is not connected to the suit properties. The plaintiffs herein already filed a suit in respect of the property covered under the sale deed dated 06.01.1880 and the matter reached finality and the suit was dismissed and the title of the defendants and the plaintiffs has not been established. The present suit has been filed suppressing the same. The survey number referred in the plaint and the extent shown in the schedule of properties are no way connected. The property purchased by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospal in Foreign Parts (S.P.G.) is no way connected to the suit properties. The defendants have also denied the alleged trespass and putting up of a construction and the allegation that the plaintiffs came to know about the settlement proceedings in the year 2014 is highly improbable, in fact, the plaintiffs have conducted many cases from the year 1988, in respect of the suit property. The subject matter of the suit is already decided in the former suit between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Hence, the suit is barred by principles of res-judicata.

4. When the suit