J U D G M E N T

The Second Appeal is drawn from the judgment and decree of the Fifth Additional District Court, Ernakulam in A.S. No.162 of 1993 confirming judgment and decree of the Third Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam dismissing O.S. No.146 of 1985 which was for recovery of possession of the suit properties.

2. The following substantial questions of law are framed for a decision:

(i) When the previous suits referred to in the judgments of the courts below do not relate to the plaint schedule property and title to the plaint schedule property was not directly and substantially in issue in the said suits, can an independent enquiry regarding the said issue in the present suit be held to be barred in view of Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”)?

(ii) When there is direct evidence regarding title of the plaintiff and its predecessors over the plaint schedule property which is clearly identified with reference to the survey number, boundaries and extent, can the mention of a “Maradikavu” in the earlier proceedings without reference to the survey number, boundaries and extent of the property wherein the said “Kavu” is situated, be taken as