Judgment :- 1. The first defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he is entitled to the properties described in the plaint A, B, C, D and E schedules and for possession thereof. It is not in dispute that these properties originally belonged to one Ayodya Ramanuja Doss Animal who seemed to have been doing charities and kainkaryams in Srimushnam out of the income from her properties. 2. According to the plaintiff he is a relation of the said Ayodya Ramanuja Doss Ammal as her brothers son and she executed a settlement deed Ex. A. 1 on 6.6.1976 going ‘A’ schedule properties to the plaintiff and another settlement deed Ex. A. 2 on 6.7.1976 giving ‘B’ schedule properties to him and she also executed Ex. A. 3 will on the same day (6.7.1976) under which she gave him the ‘C schedule properties. The said Ayodya Ramanuja Doss Ammal died on 1.6.1977. During the plaintiffs absence at Srimushnam when he was at Madras the first defendant was asked to do poojas at the Srimushnam Mutt. He secreted the ‘D’ schedule silver vessels and he also trespassed upon the plaint A, B and C schedule properties. Ayodhya Ramanuja Doss Ammal had invested ‘E’ schedule amounts in the second defendant bank. In respect of these investments amounts the plaintiff filed O.P. No. 45 of 1978 for Succession Certificate but that was objected to by the defendant and the same was dismissed. There was no appeal filed against that order. The first defendant has no manner of right whatsoever for all the schedule properties. Therefore the suit. 3. The first defendant contended that the plaintiff is not the relation of the said Ayodya Ramanuja Doss Ammal and he has obtained two settlement deeds and also the Will in his favour by deceit undue influence and coercion and therefore those settlement deeds and the Will are not valid in respect of A, B and C schedule properties. He further contended that in respect of the said settlement deeds Ayodya Ramanuja Doss Ammal has also executed two revocation deeds Exs. B. 1 and B. 2. He has further contended that Ayodya Ramanuja Doss Ammal has subsequently executed a Will Ex. He further contended that in respect of the said settlement deeds Ayodya Ramanuja Doss Ammal has also executed two revocation deeds Exs. B. 1 and B. 2. He has further contended that Ayodya Ramanuja Doss Ammal has subsequently executed a Will Ex. B4 on 3.11.1976 in favour of the first defendant in respect of all the plaint schedule properties and on the strenghth of this Will filed by the first defendant the plaintiffs petition O.P. No. 45 of 1978 for Succession Certificate was dismissed. This being her last Will only he is entitled to the properties and therefore the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. 4. The learned trial Judge on consideration of the evidence adduced in the case held that the settlement deeds Exs. A. 1 and A. 2 as well as the Will Ex. A. 3 are all valid. He further held that the first defendant failed to prove by adducing necessary evidence his alleged Will Ex. B. 4. He also held that the plaintiff is a relation of Ayodya Ramanuja Doss Ammal as pleaded by him. On these findings he decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved, the first defendant has come up with this appeal. 5. Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-first defendant would at the outset submit that she is not advancing any argument with regard to the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties which have been covered under the two settlement deeds Exs. A. 1 and A. 2. But however as regards the rest of the schedules i.e., C, D and E schedules she argued that these properties were covered by the last Will Ex. B. 4 executed by Ayodya Ramanuja Doss Ammal in favour of the first defendant, and the trial court has erred in holding that this Will Ex. B. 4 has not been proved by examining any attesting witness.. 6. The learned counsel contends that no doubt it is true that no attesting witness of this Will has been examined but the learned trial judge failed to note that the Will has been already proved in O.P. No. 45 of 1978 before the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram and hence there is no necessity for once again proving the Will. Therefore the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether Ex. Therefore the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether Ex. B. 4 Will which has been proved in O.P. No. 45 of 1978 need not be proved in the present suit and hence the learned trial judge fell into an error in holding that the Will has not been proved. 7. In support of her case the learned counsel cited some decisions one among them being of Nagpur High Court in “Kisan Copal Madan Gopal Marwadi v. Chunnilal Hanamantram and others” A.I.R. 1938 Nag. 47 wherein it has been held that, In a case where Succession Certificate is claimed by a person to the estate of a deceased testator as heir and rever sioner and the opponent sets up a registered Will, the Court must first decide whether the Will was validly executed and this will not involve a question whether the testator was entitled to dispose of the property mentioned in the Will. If the Court decides that the Will was validly executed, it has no jurisdiction to grant a Succession Certificate, and the question of jurisdiction must be decided first. This decision was cited contending that in a Succession Certificate matter when a Will is produced by the opposite side the court has to go into the validity of the Will. I am in complete agreement with this submission. 8. In our case the plaintiff has filed O.P. No. 45 of 1978 for Succession Certificate and the first defendant set up the Will Ex. B. 4 while objecting to the grant of Succession Certificate and the Court as regards the genuineness and validity of this Will took evidence and upon consideration of that evidence held that the Will is valid and genuine. 9. Another decision cited by the learned counsel is “Sri Sangameswaraswamy Temple, by its Executive Officer, Fort, Coimbatore v. A.M. Kunhame (died) and 14 others 100 L.W. 41 wherein Ratnam, J. has held that the principle of res judicata will apply to the decisions rendered in the City Tenants Protection Act proceedings. 10. 9. Another decision cited by the learned counsel is “Sri Sangameswaraswamy Temple, by its Executive Officer, Fort, Coimbatore v. A.M. Kunhame (died) and 14 others 100 L.W. 41 wherein Ratnam, J. has held that the principle of res judicata will apply to the decisions rendered in the City Tenants Protection Act proceedings. 10. On the side of the respondents it was argued that in the Succession Certificate matter (O.P. 45 of 1978) only the ‘E’ schedule property i.e., the deposits in the Bank, was involved and not other properties, and further the enquiry was only summary in nature and therefore (sic) the decision which would operate as res judicata in the present suit which involves A, B, C and D schedule proper ties also. To this contention in my view the Judg ment of the Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas and others v. State of U.P. and others A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 2198gives the com plete answer. It is held therein as follows: “It is well settled that Sec. 11 of the C.P.C. is not exhaustive of the general doctrine of res judicata and though the rule of res judicate as enacted in Sec. 11 has some technical aspects “the general doctrine is founded on considerations of high public policy to achieve two objectives namely, that there must be a finality to litigation and that individuals should not be harassed twice over with the same kind of litigation. Technical aspects of Sec. 11 of C.P.C, as for instance, pecuniary or subject wise competence of the earlier forum to adjudicate the subject matter or gram reliefs souglit in the subsequent litigation would be immaterial what the general doctrine of res judicata is to be invoked.” (Emphasis mine) The Supreme Court in this judgment has quoted another Judgment of it in “Gulabchand Chotalal Paiikh v. State of Bombay (Now Gujarat)” (1965) (1965)2 S.C.R. 547: A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1153. wherein it has been observed that, “It is not necessary that the Court deciding the matter formerly be competent to decide the subsequent suit or that the former proceeding and the subsequent suit have the same subject matter. The nature of tlie former proceeding is immaterial. (Emphasis supplied) 11. Now in the O.P. Proceedings (O.P. No. 45 of 1978; it has been, after contest be tween the parties, decided that Ex. B. 4 Will is true, valid and genuine. The nature of tlie former proceeding is immaterial. (Emphasis supplied) 11. Now in the O.P. Proceedings (O.P. No. 45 of 1978; it has been, after contest be tween the parties, decided that Ex. B. 4 Will is true, valid and genuine. This decision has not been questioned in any appeal. Therefore that has be come final. It is clear that in view of the above-said Supreme Court decision, this decision holding Ex. B. 4 as a true and valid Will in the O.P. proceedinngs will operate as res judicata in the present suit This being the position no question of proving the Will by examining any attesting witness as required under S. 68 of the Evidence Act arises. In fact execution of ExB. 4 Will has been admitted by the plaintiff 12. In view of this Will Ex. B. 4 being the last Will of Ayodya Ramanuja Doss Ammal, the defendant naturally will get the properties covered under that Will As stated above, this Will cover among others, the plaint C, D and E scheduled properties. Hence the plaintiff cannot claim these properties i.e. C, D and E schedules as belonging to him either under Ex. A3 Will or as heir of Ayodya Ramanuja Doss AmmaL 13. The result is, the appeal is allowed as far as the properties in C, D and E schedules, as regards ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedules the Judgment of the trial Court is conformed. There will be no order as to costs.