The principle of res judicata applies where prior judgments adjudicate related issues impacting subsequent declaration of title, necessitating consistency in judicial decisions.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession has come up in the present appeal, aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

As per the averments in the plaint, an extent of 13 cents of land comprised in survey No.34/12 of Kuttoor Village was gifted to the plaintiff by her mother by gift deed Nos.2259/1988 and 1655/1988 of SRO, Thiruvalla, on 20.5.1988. The plaint schedule property lies adjacent to the M.C. Road on its western side. The 1^st defendant is the owner of one cent of land, described in the plaint as plaint schedule item No.2 property, comprised in survey No.42/3 of Kuttoor Village, and as per the prior documents, the said one cent is situated on the eastern side of the M.C. road and that, he has no property on the western side of the M.C. road. O.S. No.3 of 1988 was filed before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla, for the fixation of boundary in respect of the property of the 1^st defendant herein as well as the parents of the plaintiff. In O.S. No.3 of 1988 , the 1^st respondent herein claimed that he is entitled to have the boundary fixed with that of the defendants therein, who are none other than the parents of the plaintiff. The suit was originally dismissed by the trial court by judgment and decree dated 25.11.1992. Aggrieved, the 1^st defendant herein preferred A.S. No.20 of 1993 , and by judgment dated 31.7.1995, the appeal was allowed, and the title of the plaintiff therein was found, and fixation of boundary was granted. In execution of the decree, the boundary was fixed, and thereby, the one cent of property which the plaintiff claimed was hers by virtue of the gift deed, was demarcated into the possession of the 1^st defendant. When attempts were made by the 1^st defendant to execute the judgment and decree in A.S. No.20 of 1993 , the plaintiff filed O.S. No.419 of 2000 for an injunction simpliciter. The said suit was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit, and hence the suit O.S. No.477 of 2002 was filed before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla. During the pendency of the suit, the 1^st defendant transferred the plaint schedule property in favour of his son, who is none other than the 2^nd additional defendant.

2.1. The defendants resisted the suit and contended that the issue raised in the present suit has already been concluded between the parties in the earlier suit, and therefore, the present suit is hit by principles of res judicata. The said plea was accepted by the trial court, and the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No.44 of 2007 before the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, which was dismissed by judgment dated 5.7.2010. Hence, the present appeal.

3. While admitting the appeal on 14.2.2012, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:

(i) When title of a property is not an issue in a former suit and declaration of title was not sought for in the former suit, whether a subsequent declaration of title is not maintainable? (ii) When the property identifiable from the description of a former suit is different from that identifiable by the description of a subsequent suit, whether any findings relating to the suit property in former suit operates as res- judicata for a declaration in differently identifiable property of the subsequent suit?

4. Heard Sri. P.C. Shijin, the learned counsel representing Sri. P. Haridas, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that