Judgment :- The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the seven defendants on the basis of the sale deed Ex.A-1 executed by second defendant on 24.4.1967. The same property was sold by the second defendant along defendants 3, 4 and 5 under Ex.B-10 sale deed dated 2.3.1978 in favour of first defendant. According to the plaintiff on the basis of Ex.B-10 the defendants 1, 6 and 7 interfered the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Therefore the suit. 2. Defendants 1, 6 and 7 are contesting the suit while other defendants remained ex parte. 3. It is contended that one Sadayan Asari filed O.S.No.290 of 1967 against the second defendant for recovery of amount due under a pronote dated 9.10.1964. In that Sadayan Asari got the suit property attached before judgment on 27.6.1967. The present plaintiff who had purchased the property earlier on 24.4.1967 filed a claim petition I.A.No.1972 of 1968 for raising attachment by an order dated 8.8.1970 that application was dismissed on the ground that another suit O.S.No.577 of 1967 filed by present plaintiff against two persons in respect of the same properties for declaration injunction was dismissed. The present plaintiff filed O.S.No.656 of 1971 against Sadayan Asari and Pachaiyammal-second defendant in the District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi under O.21, Rule 63, C.P.C. for setting aside the summary order in the claim petition. This suit was decreed on 30.4.1973 on the ground that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.577 of 1967 were reversed in A.S.No.181 of 1969 on 28.8.1970 on the file of Sub Court, Cuddalore, Sadayan Asari filed A.S.No.447 of 1973 in the Sub Court, Cuddalore against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.656 of 1971 against the present plaintiff and also Pachaiyammal second defendant. The appeal was allowed on 4.11.1974 and the suit was dismissed on ground, that, (i) the sale in favour of the present plaintiff by Pachaiyammal was intended defeat and delay the creditors and hence it was hit by Sec.53 of the Transfer of Property Act; and (ii) Pachaiyammal was a minor on the date of sale and therefore the sale invalid. As against this judgment no second appeal was preferred. As against this judgment no second appeal was preferred. While so the fourth defendant in the present suit filed O.S.No.113 of 1975 against present plaintiff, his vendor-second defendant Pachaiyammal and also her sisters- 3 and 5, for partition of her l/4th share in the very same property on the ground that property belonged to her father Doraisamy Asari who died leaving behind three daughters and a son. The suit was contested on the ground that the fourth defendant was not daughter of Doraisamy Asari and in any case he died before 1956 and therefore she not claim any share. The plaintiff as first defendant in that suit also contended that he the absolute owner of the property and Pachaiyammal had no right. The trial court held the plaintiff therein i.e., Vengachi alias Veerammal was not the daughter of Doraisamy and also she did not prove that Doraisamy Asari died after 1956. The court gave further finding that the second defendant herein-Pachaiyammal alone was the owner of the property in view of the judgment in appeal A.S.No.447 of 1973. The fourth defendant filed an appeal A.S.No.46 of 1978 before the Sub Court. Cuddalore. In that appeal the present plaintiff the first defendant in that case also filed a cross objection against the finding Pachaiyammal was entitled to the property. The appellate court concurred with the finding the trial court and dismissed the appeal and also dismissed the cross objection on the ground that A.S.No.447 of 1973 operates as res judicata. No further appeal was filed. On grounds the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The trial court held that the judgment in A.S.No.447 of 1973 and the judgment A.S.No.46 of 1978 do not operate as res judicata as contended by the defendants. If further held the second defendant Pachaiyammal was a major on the date of the sale deed in favour the plaintiff and the plaintiff was also in possession of the property on the date of the Therefore the suit was decreed as prayed for. The contesting defendants 1, 6 and 7 A.S.No.120 of 1982 in the Sub Court, Cuddalore and the Court gave a finding to the that the said two judgments in the earlier proceedings operate as res judicata and therefore it allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. As against this the present second appeal preferred. 5. The contesting defendants 1, 6 and 7 A.S.No.120 of 1982 in the Sub Court, Cuddalore and the Court gave a finding to the that the said two judgments in the earlier proceedings operate as res judicata and therefore it allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. As against this the present second appeal preferred. 5. The second appeal earlier came up before Mohan, J. (as he then was). The main point arose for consideration of the learned Judge was whether the present suit is barred by principle of res judicata in view of the decisions in A.S.No.447 of 1973 and A.S.No.46 1978. In support of the contention of the appellant-plaintiff that the suit is not barred by judicata a Full Bench decision of this Court in Kandadai Narasimhachariar v. Raghava Padayachi, (1945)2 M.L.J. 89 , and a judgment of the Supreme Court in Mangru Mario Yamakandan Lal, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1390, were cited, while on the side of the respondents defendants a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Bandipada Ramireddy v. Tagaran Bichalu, (1952)1 M.L.J. 475 , was relied on. 6. While it was argued by the appellant-plaintiff that the decision in A.S.No.447 of which was rendered in a claim suit under 0.21, Rule 63, C.P.C. will not operate as judicata, the opposite side contended that it will operate as res judicata. In the Division Bench decision in Bandipada Ramireddy v. Tagaran Bichalu, (1952)1 M.L.J. 475 , it has been clearly held that a decision regarding the title to the property in dispute claim suit filed under 0.21, Rule 63, C.P.C. where the claimant and judgment-debtor parties as co-defendants would operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between claimant and the representatives in interest of the judgment-debtor where the title same property is in dispute if the three requisite conditions laid down by the Privy Council Mangru v. Tarakeshwar Nath, (1931)61 M.L.J. 196, for applicability of the rule of res as between co-defendants are satisfied. The requisite conditions are, (i) there must conflict of interests between the defendants concerned, (ii) it must be necessary to this conflict in order to give the plaintiff the relief he claims, and (iii) the question the defendants must have been finally decided. 7. The requisite conditions are, (i) there must conflict of interests between the defendants concerned, (ii) it must be necessary to this conflict in order to give the plaintiff the relief he claims, and (iii) the question the defendants must have been finally decided. 7. From this principle laid down it goes without saying that a decision rendered in a claim filed under O.21, Rule 63, where the claimant is plaintiff and the judgment defendant or one of the defendants that decision will operate as res judicata if the conditions laid down in Sec.11, C.P.C, viz., the subject-matter of the suits and the involved for decision being the same are present. In this Division Bench decision observation of the Full Bench in Kandadai Narasimhachariar v. Raghava Padayachi, M.L.J. 89, has been referred to and held that the said observation will not land itself interpretation that in no case will the decision be given in a suit under 0.21, Rule reference to title to the property would operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit. In words according to the Division Bench the Full Bench decision is not to the effect that decision rendered in a suit filed under 0.21, Rule 63 will not operate as res judicata the parties, the subject-matter and issues involved for decision in the two suits are same. 8. In the decision of the Supreme Court in Mangru Mario v. Yamakandan Lal, A.I.R. 1967 1390, the point under consideration was whether an order passed on petition filed 0.21, Rule 58 would operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit. While deciding this the Supreme Court referred to with approval the decision in the Full Bench in Narasimhachariar v. Raghava Padayachi, (1945)2 M.L.J. 89 , Mohan, J. Expressing the that the said observation in the Division Bench decision in Bandipada Ramireddy v. Bichalu, (1952)1 M.L.J. 475 , does not seem to be in accordance with the ruling of Bench in the light of the confirmation of it by the Supreme Court and this is an important question to be decided, wanted the matter to be referred to a Full Bench. 9. 9. The Full Bench to which the matter was referred to in the decision reported in Rowther v. Poongavanammal, (1990)1 L. W. 444, held, as seen from paragraph 7 Judgment, that the Supreme Court decision in Mangru Marto v. Yamakandan Lal, A.l.R. S.C. 1390, was rendered with regard to the implications of an unsuccessful claimant filed a petition under O.21, Rule 58, C.P.C. and not filed a suit under O.21, Rule 63 approval of the Supreme Court of the decision of the Full Bench in Narasimhachariar v. Raghava Padayachi, (1945)2 M.L.J. 89 , would only be understood confining to the said aspect alone i.e., the appication of an order passed on a petition under O.21, Rule 58 without taking the matter further by way of suit. The Full Bench held that the decision of the Division Bench in Bandipada Ramireddy v. Tagaran (1952)1 M.L.J. 475 , was rendered in a different context, by meaning that in the case Division Bench decision a claim suit under O.21, Rule 63 has been filed. So holding Bench said that whether to a particular case a decision rendered under O.21, Rule operate as res judicata will depend upon the scope of the controversy in that case whether the subject matter of the suit in both the suits is the same and the parlies same and issue involved is the same. So holding the Full Bench referred the matter the single judge to dispose of the appeal. This is how the matter is now before me. 10. From the above findings of the Full Bench in Yakub Rowther v. Poongavanammal others, (1990)1 L.W. 444 , it is clear that a decision rendered in a claim suit filed under Rule 63 will operate as res judicata as held by the Division Bench in Bandipada Ramireddy Tagaran Bichalu, (1952)1 M.L.J. 475 , if the subject matter of the suits is the same and parties are the same and issues involved for decision are the same. So what we have decide is, for the decision in A.S.No.447 of 1981 to operate as res judicata in the suit whether the parties in both the suits are the same and the issues involved are the same as laid down under Sec.11, C.P.C. not in dispute that the parties in both the suits are same and the subject-matter is the and the issues involved is also the same. This being the case it is obvious that the in A.S.No.447 of 1981 will operate as res judicata in the present suit. The decision cross objections filed by the plaintiff herein in A.S.No.46 of 1978 which was based decision in A.S.No.447 of 1973 that decision i.e., the decision in the cross-objections A.S.No.46 of 1978 also would operate as res judicata. Therefore the judgment of the appellate Court has to be upheld as correct. 11. The result is, the appeal is dismissed, but considering the circumstances of the there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.