Judgment :- 1. The above Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 509 of 1977, on the file of the District Munsif, Kulithalai, against the Judgment and decree of the first appellate Court (Sub Court, Karur), in A.S. No. 54 of 1981. 2. The first defendant in O.S. No. 509 of 1977 has also filed O.S. No. 433 of 1978, making counter-claims. Both the suits have been tried together by the learned trial judge and by judgment and decree dated 30.1.1981, the suit O.S. N0. 509 of 1977, filed by the appellant, came to be decreed and O.S. No. 433 of 1978 filed by the first defendant in the said suit came to be dismissed. 3. Aggrieved, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 433 of 1978 as also the first defendant in O.S. No. 509 of 1977 filed two separate Appeals, namely, A.S. Nos. 89 and 54 of 81 respectively on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Karur. Once again both the Appeals were heard together, and the matters were disposed of as follows:— “In the result A.S. No. 54/81 ia allowed in part and the judgment and decree of the lower court are modified and the plaintiff is granted declaration that he has got right on the north of AB line in Ex. C.2 and the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction directing the defendants to close the hole at point F in Ex. A.1 and in other respects the suit is dismissed. Ex. C.4 and C.1 shall form part of the decree. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs through out. In the result A.S. 89/81 is allowed in part and the judgment and decree of the lower court are modified granting declaration in favour of the plaintiff to allow the rain water from the roof to fall on the north of the disputed wall and in other respects the suit is dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. The Commissioners plan Ex. C.2 shall form part of the appeal decree”. As noticed supra, the appellant has filed only one Appeal against the judgment in the Appeal filed against the suit filed by him in the trial Court. 4. In the peculiar circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. The Commissioners plan Ex. C.2 shall form part of the appeal decree”. As noticed supra, the appellant has filed only one Appeal against the judgment in the Appeal filed against the suit filed by him in the trial Court. 4. When the matter was heard, the learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the suit on the principles of res judicata, relying upon the decision reported in A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1202 ( Premier Tyres Limited v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation). The Apex Court, in the decision relied upon for the respondents, held as follows:— “Although none of these decisions were concerned with a situation where no appeal was filed against the decision in connected suit but it appears that where an appeal arising out of connected suits is dismissed on merits the other cannot be heard, and has to be dismissed. The question is what happens where no appeal is filed, as in this case from the decree in connected suit. Effect on non-filing of appeal against a judgment or decree is that it becomes final. This finality can be taken away only in accordance with law. Same consequences follow when a judgment or decree in a connected suit is not appealed from. xx xx xxx xxx Thus the finality of finding recorded in the connected suit, due to non-filing of appeal, precluded the court from proceeding with appeal in other suit. In any view of the matter, the order of the High Court is not liable to interference.” 5. Mr. M.S. Umapathi, the learned counsel for the appellant, has sought to place reliance upon a decision reported in A.I.R. 1970 Madras 76 (Kanthoom Bivi Ammal and another v. Arulappa Nadar and another), by a learned Judge of this Court. In any view of the matter, the order of the High Court is not liable to interference.” 5. Mr. M.S. Umapathi, the learned counsel for the appellant, has sought to place reliance upon a decision reported in A.I.R. 1970 Madras 76 (Kanthoom Bivi Ammal and another v. Arulappa Nadar and another), by a learned Judge of this Court. I am afraid I can countenance the submission placed by the learned counsel for the appellant which, in my view, is opposed to the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court in A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1202 (Supra) Applying the ratio in the said decision, the above Second Appeal shall stand dismissed in view of the finality that has been allowed to be achieved by the decree passed in the connected suit and appeal which has not been challenged by the appellant by any separate appeal though he was a party to the said proceedings. No costs.