SHYAMSUNDAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS second appeal is by the plaintiff who filed a suit seeking a declaration that he is the owner of 1 acre 27 guntas of land, of which the defendant was an occupant as held by the Special Deputy commissioner and given that status in proceedings adopted under the inams Abolition Act, in which there was a contest, before the karnataka Revenue Appellate tribunal between the parties, culminating finally in an order made by this Court in W. P. Nos. 539 and 606/1973 on 6-2-1970, under a considered order made by his lordship Mr. Justice Jagannath shetty, as he then was, rejecting both the writ petitions as bereft of any substance. ( 2 ) IT would be useful to extract some parts of the order made by his Lordship relating to this"on the question of regularity of the procedure adopted by the Deputy Commissioner, I may state, that rightly or wrongly the petitioner was represented in the enquiry by his elder brother. His elder brother was examined by the tahsildar. He made a statement which was accepted by the deputy Commissioner. That was the basis for granting occupancy rights to the petitioner and his brother. I have perused the contentions urged in the appeals before the Tribunal. All those contentions relate to the alleged fraud said to have been committed by his elder brother. The petitioner did not urge that there should have been a joint enquiry on the rival applications. In the circumstances, I find no justification to reverse the order of the Tribunal, either on the question of limitation or any other ground. In the result, these petitions fail and are dismissed, but no costs. The petitioner did not urge that there should have been a joint enquiry on the rival applications. In the circumstances, I find no justification to reverse the order of the Tribunal, either on the question of limitation or any other ground. In the result, these petitions fail and are dismissed, but no costs. " ( 3 ) AFTER the dismissal of the writ petitions referred to supra, the plaintiff went back to the court of Munsiff, at Mandya seeking a decree in respect of that very item of property alleging that the declaration obtained by his brother at the hands of the inam abolition authorities was void and nonest, because he had no opportunity to participate in these proceedings, and that he had actually been kept in the dark about the proceedings, wherein his brother had purported to act on his behalf although he had no authority to do so and had succeeded in persuading the inam Abolition Authorities to decjare him as an occupant even in regard to the disputed item of property to which he had no entitlement at all. ( 4 ) THE Dy. Commissioner of Inams who (sic) was in favour of the defendant was not a party to the suit. The plaintiff also did not make any prayer for possession of the suit schedule property which had by then vested in the government. ( 5 ) THE sole defendant in the suit is no other than the brother of the plaintiff and he raised in main the objection touching the maintainability of the suit in view of the proceedings adopted under the Inams Abolition Act, that had reached a terminus a quo by the dismissal of the writ petitions presented on behalf of the plaintiff before the High Court. ( 6 ) SUFFICE it to note the Munsiff, dismissed the suit and subsequently in an appeal before the Civil Judge the plaintiff did not meet with any better success. While the matter was pending before the civil Judge, appellant made an application for amending his plaint by including a prayer for annulling the order of the Spl. Deputy commissioner and for a direction being issued to the Spl. Dy. Commissioner to grant occupancy rights to him. He did not however seek for impieading of the Spl. Dy. Commissioner as a party to nominee to the proceedings. Deputy commissioner and for a direction being issued to the Spl. Dy. Commissioner to grant occupancy rights to him. He did not however seek for impieading of the Spl. Dy. Commissioner as a party to nominee to the proceedings. ( 7 ) THE learned Civil Judge by a considered order dismissed both, the appeal and the application. Hence this appeal. ( 8 ) SRI Kadidal Manjappa who appeared for the appellants in this appeal, strenuously contended that the Civil Judge was wrong in rejecting the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint seeking to include the relief of cancellation of the Dy. Commissioner's order and wanted in particularly to consider the aftermath of such rejection. He also urged that the learned Munsiff having held that the proceedings before the inams Abolition Authority were held behind his back, the benefit of those views that should have rightly gone to his client have been denied, and made a further complaint that the Civil Judge had not bestowed his attention on that aspect of the matter at all. Sri shivappa learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the learned civil Judge had dealt with the aforesaid matter also. ( 9 ) IT is however not necessary to go into this controversy at all as in my view there appears to be an insurmountable hurdle in the way of the plaintiff which totally blocks his success in the suit. This Court had rejected his writ petitions holding the same to be groundless and without substance. ( 10 ) IT is not denied that the controversy herein and at all times has been regarding the declaration made in favour of the defendant treating him as an occupant of 1 acre 27 guntas of lands to which the plaintiff lays claim and seeks for confirment of the status of an occupant to that item of property under the Inams Abolition Act. His case has been that the said item of iand had failen to his share at a partition and despite the same his brother had managed to knock it off that by making a fraudjent representation to the special Deputy Commissioner of Inams stating that he had authority to represent him and had claimed his entitlement even to the disputed item to the detriment of the plaintiff. It is this point which the plaintiff has not been able to make good right through. It is this point which the plaintiff has not been able to make good right through. His appeal to the Revenue Appellate tribunal, stood dismissed as barred by time. Thereafter he came to this Court in the two writ petitions referred to supra complaining of the order made by the tribunal and the injustice done to him by the authorities under the Inams Abolition Act in awarding his property to his brother who had successfully jeopardised his rights. It is on a consideration of all these aspects, this Court, while dismissing the writ petition referred to supra made the order to which I have adverted to earlier. ( 11 ) THE decision of this Court is really on the merits of the matter, but Mr. Manjappa says that this Court did not consider the question as to whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner was vitiated by fraud and the main thrust of the plaintiff's case in the suit now under consideration being the fraudlent act of the defendant there the no inhibition can operate against him in presenting the foregoing aspect by a fresh suit as was done presently. ( 12 ) IT seems to me the ground as aforesaid is not well founded. At any rate, it runs against a series of decisions of the Supreme court and this Court, wherein it has been held that parties who had agitated before court in a writ petition, any question pertaining to a particular subject matter, should not be allowed to reagitate the same subsequently in a suit and that the decision rendered by the High Court on that aspect on the earlier occasion operates as resjudicata and debars consideration in the subsequent suit. ( 13 ) IT seems to me that aforesaid principle applies on all fours to the situation obtaining herein. As I have pointed out earlier, the only question for consideration herein is the plaintiff's entitlement to occupancy rights in regard to one item of property measuring 1 acre 27 guntas. This controversy had arisen between the plaintiff, the defendant and Inams Abolition authorities, before culminating with the decision of the High court giving a quietus in rejecting the two writ petitions presented by the plaintiff on the earlier occasion and that would undoubtedly operate as resjudicata. Mr. This controversy had arisen between the plaintiff, the defendant and Inams Abolition authorities, before culminating with the decision of the High court giving a quietus in rejecting the two writ petitions presented by the plaintiff on the earlier occasion and that would undoubtedly operate as resjudicata. Mr. Manjappa's submission that on the question of fraud, this Court not having recorded any finding at all and having only made a passing reference thereto, would not in those circumstances deter him from initiating a second round of litigation in that behalf and such a step could not be treated as impermissible on principles of res judicata is clearly unfounded. 13 (a ). I am afraid. I cannot agree. This question came up directly for consideration before the supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA vs. NANAK SINGH ( AIR 1968 sc 1370 ). That was a case in which an Inspector in the office of the Custodian had been dismissed from service. He filed a writ petition before the Punjab High court on two grounds. The first one was that the termination order infringed Art. 311 of the Constitution and the second ground was regard competency of the authority ordering such termination. The High Court ruled on the first ground while dismissing the writ petition but did not allude to the second ground at all. The party then filed a suit challenging his dismissal on the second ground viz. , that the authority which terminated his services had not the requisite competence. ( 14 ) IT was held by the Supreme Court in the context of these facts that the suit based on a ground not considered and decided by the high Court on an earlier occasion still barred its consideration in the suit on grounds of resjudicata. Suffice it to refer to the following paragraphs:"provisions of Section 11 Civil p. C. are not exclusive with respect to an earlier decision operating as resjudicata between the same parties on the same matter in controversy in a subsequent regular suit, and on the general principle of resjudicata, any previous decision on a matter in controversy, decided after full contest or after affording fair opportunity to the parties to prove their case by a Court competent to decide it, will operate as resjudicata in a subsequent regular suit. It is not necessary that the , Court deciding the matter formerly should be competent to decide the subsequent suit or that the former proceeding and the subsequent suit should have the same subject matter. There is no good reason to preclude such decisions on matters in controversy in writ proceeding under article 226 or Art. 32 of the constitution from operating as resjudicata in subsequent regular suits on the same matters in controversy between the same parties and thus to give limited effect to the principles of the finality of decisions after full contest. AIR 1965 sc. 1153 , Rel. on. Appellant had filed a writ petition challenging termination of his temporary services on the grounds of infringment of Article 311 and the competence of authority ordering termination. Petition was dismissed in appeal, without however any decision on competency of the officer issuing termination order. Appellant filed a suit for declaration that his services were terminated by an authority lower in rank than the competent authority and as such he should be deemed to be in service. Held that the suit was barred by resjudicata. The judgment in the previous case operated by express decision as resjudicata. "this decision was followed by their Lordships again in STATE of PUNJAB vs. BUA DAS KAUSHAL (A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 1676 ). Both these cases were followed by this court in RSA No. 246/69 disposed of on 11-11-1971. Therein His lordship E. S. Venkataramaiah as he then was made the following observations. "it is now well settled that a decision in a writ petition would operate as resjudicata in a subsequent suit of the same matter vide THE UNION OF india v. NAND KISHORE (A. I. R. 1968 Supreme Court 1370) and THE STATE OF PUNJAB v bua DAS KAUSHAL (A. I. R. 1971 supreme Court 1676 ). In view of the foregoing, this appeal has to fail since the suit instituted by the plaintiff is barred by principles of resjudicata. This second appeal is, therefore, dismissed, but without any order as to costs. " ( 15 ) BETWEEN the authoritive pronouncements of the Supreme court and this Court, there is hardly any room for me to examine the tenability of the contentions urged by Sri Manjappa for the appellants. This second appeal is, therefore, dismissed, but without any order as to costs. " ( 15 ) BETWEEN the authoritive pronouncements of the Supreme court and this Court, there is hardly any room for me to examine the tenability of the contentions urged by Sri Manjappa for the appellants. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, I must hold that the suit filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 278/79 on the file of the Prl. Munsiff, Mandya is barred by resjudicata in view of the decision of the High Court in w. P. No. 539 and 605 of 1973 dated 6-2-1974. The suit is therefore liable to be dismissed which in fact is the result obtaining from the decision of Prl. Civil Judge on appeal but on different grounds. ( 17 ) THEREFORE, it is I do not find any merit in this appeal, which accordingly, fails and is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .