JUDGMENT G.S. Sial, M. - These are two connected second appeals against the judgment and decree dated February 17, 1969 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection. He stated that in this case four suits were filed before the trial court: Suit No. 156 by Barsottam and other; suit No. 171 by Atma Singh and others, suit No. 154 by Sheo Murat and others and suit No. 155 by Ram Chander Singh and others. In all the suits Sarda Prasad was the common defendant. The suits were filed under section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The trial court decree all the suits by a common judgment on January 13, 1966. The appeals filed by Sarda Prasad Singh were dismissed by the lower appellate court on February 17, 1969. Four second appeals were filed by Sarda Prasad Singh. Second Appeal Nos. 332 and 333 were dismissed as having abated under Order XXII, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code, on July 15, 1975. The two second appeals Nos. 334 and 293 remained pending. In all four appeals the common questions of fact and law are involved. Owing to the decision of the Board, the judgment of the lower appellate court and the trial court stood confirmed due to the dismissal of the two second appeals and therefore the decision of those cases will operate as res judicata in the cases now pending to be decided. The second appeals are, therefore, barred by the principle of res judicata. He referred to 1966 A.I.R. (S.C.) 1332 and 1969 A.I.R. (S.C.) 1332 and 1969 A.I.R. Alld. (F.B.) 524 (paras 24 to 26) in support of his contention. He further submitted that this matter has been considered by the Division Bench of the High Court in Special Appeal No. 199 of 1972-Chaturgan Shukla v. D.D.C. decided on August 23, 1976. He has supplied a true copy of that judgment in support of his case. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant in reply stated that without going into the merits of the ruling, we have to examine the wordings of Section 11, Civil Procedure Code according to which the dispute must be between the common parties and the subject matter of the suit be the same. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant in reply stated that without going into the merits of the ruling, we have to examine the wordings of Section 11, Civil Procedure Code according to which the dispute must be between the common parties and the subject matter of the suit be the same. In this case the plaintiffs in all the four suits were different and they were suing for different plots against the common defendant. So the parties were not the same in each case and nor was the subject matter common. The parties to be the same will not mean that one of the parties should be common. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that Section 11 would not be applicable in these cases. Secondly, he submitted that there is no decision on merits in these cases. The appeals were merely abated will mean that the appeals were found to be not competent and thus not alive. He submitted that when the subject matter is different, then a mere abatement of the connected suits will not abate the appeals of which the subject matter is different. He referred to 1962 R.D (S.C.) 334 in support of his contention. 4. The main point involved is whether the present appeals are barred by the principles of res judicata in view of the facts and circumstances brought forth in the above paragraphs. The circumstances in which a plea of res judicata will be accepted are well understood and are summarised as below: (1) that the litigating parties must be the same, (2) that the subject matter of the suit also must be identical, (3) that the matter must be finally decided between the parties, and. (4) that the suit must be decided by a court if competent jurisdiction. It has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1976 A.I.R. 1569 that the best method to decide the question of res judicata is first to determine the case of the parties as put forward in their respective pleadings of their previous suits and then find out as to what had been decided by the judgment which operates as res judicata. Applying these principles to this case, we have to ascertain the case of the parties and what had been decided in the judgments in appeal which now stand abated. Applying these principles to this case, we have to ascertain the case of the parties and what had been decided in the judgments in appeal which now stand abated. It is clear from the judgment of the trial court that the main point of contest in all the four cases was whether the common defendant Sharda Prasad is Sirdar of the land in suit or whether the person from whom the plaintiffs had purchased the land was the Bhumidhar of the land in suit? The trial court held, after a detailed examination of all the evidence tendered in the case, that the sale of the land was validly made by Smt. Jyoti after obtaining the Bhumidhari Sanad and that the defendant Sharda Prasad Singh had Sajhidari rights which were terminated by the chief tenant Smt. Jyoti. Accordingly, it was also held that the possession of Sharda Prasad Singh is that of trespasser and he is liable to ejectment. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed by the first appellate court. 5. Now two of the appeals viz.: S.A. No. 332 and 333 filed by Sharda Prasad Singh have abated with the result that Sharda Prasad Singh's claim of title to land stands finally negatived and the judgment of the courts below stands confirmed. The same point is involved in the two surviving appeals. If decision is now given that Sharda Prasad Singh is not a trespasser and has some title to land this judgment will be in contradiction of the orders that have already become final in the two appeals that have abated. Thus, two contrary judgments will come into existence on the main point in issue. The view to be taken in such circumstances is expounded by the Hon'ble S.C. in Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar 1966 A.I.R. (S.C.) 1332 in the following words: "Where the trial court has decided two suits having common issues on the merits and there are two appeals therefrom and one of them is dismissed on some preliminary ground, like limitation or default in printing with the result that the trial court's decision stands confirmed, the decision of the appeal court will be res judicata and the appeal court must be deemed to have heard and finally decided the matter. In such a case the result of the decision of the appeal court is to confirm the decision of the trial court given on merits, and if that is so, the decision of the appeal court will be res judicata." Applying this decision to the case the abatement of the two appeals referred to above must operate as res judicata in the present two appeals. If the other view is entertained two absolutely inconsistent judgments will come into existence on the same issue between the same parties and that being so, it will create certainly a very embarrassing(situation?). Appeals cannot be allowed to proceed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs. 6. This order will govern S.A. Nos. 293 and 334 of 1968-69, Varanasi. 7. Judgment signed dated and pronounced in open court.