ORDER B. N. Patnaik, J. 1. The plaintiffs in O. S. 47/94 on the file of the Munsiff Magistrate Court, Paravur have preferred this revision against the order dated 19th March, 1997 by which further proceeding of the suit has been stayed under S.10 of the Code of. Civil Procedure by reason of pendency of appeal against the decree and judgment in O. S. 132/91. Learned Munsiff held that the property involved in this suit which was filed later is the same as in O. S. 132/91. The plaintiffs in O. S. 132/91 were the vendors of the plaintiffs herein. As per the judgment and decree in O. S. 132/91, the title and possession in respect of the property was found in favour of the plaintiffs therein. The plaintiffs herein have purchased the property subsequent to Ext. B13 judgment, got themselves impleaded in the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree in O. S. 132/91. Since there is identity of property involved in both the suits and the parties herein are vendees/legal representatives of the parties in O. S. 132/91, the matter in the present suit being directly and substantially in issue in the earlier suit and as parties in this suit are claiming title under the same parties in the earlier suit, the trial of this suit should therefore be stayed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that S.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not attracted in this case. The evidence on record indicates that the issues involved in this suit and in O. S. 132/91 are totally different. The observation of the Munsiff that the finding of the decision in O. S. 132/91 is binding on the parties herein is erroneous. The plaintiffs in O. S. 132/92 have no interest over the property in the suit. Learned counsel for the respondent contended inter alia that the subject matter involved in both the suits are one and the same. In both the suits, the plaintiffs prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the suit property and causing damage to the boundary fence. Learned counsel for the respondent contended inter alia that the subject matter involved in both the suits are one and the same. In both the suits, the plaintiffs prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the suit property and causing damage to the boundary fence. If the appeal against O. S. 132/91 is allowed, the plaintiffs herein would lose their title to the property in as much as it would be held that the vendors as the plaintiffs in the earlier suit had no title and as such they could not convey the title to the present plaintiffs. Since this is a suit for injunction based on title as well, besides possession, the present suit would fail if the plaintiffs are found to have got no title to the property. Hence the impugned order of stay of the proceeding cannot be assailed. 3. In M. S. Balasubramanyan v. Sakthivel ( 1990 (2) KLJ 853 ) the conditions for the application of S.10 have been laid down as follows: "(1) There must be two suits - one instituted earlier in point of time and one later, (2) The matter in issue in the later suit should also be directly and substantially in issue in the earlier instituted suit; (3) Such suits should be between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title; and (4) Such suit is pending either in the same Court or in any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction or before the Supreme Court". The parties are at dispute as to the existence of the aforesaid second condition in this case. There is no dispute that the other three conditions are present in this proceeding. One of the tests for determination of the question as to whether the later suit is to be stayed under S.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to ascertain whether the decision in one suit must non suit the plaintiff in the other suit. As has been pointed out above, in both the suits the main relief sought for is to issue an order of injunction against the defendants restraining them to enter into the suit property. As has been pointed out above, in both the suits the main relief sought for is to issue an order of injunction against the defendants restraining them to enter into the suit property. This claim is based on the title of the plaintiffs. Although in the later suit the plaintiffs have not claimed for a declaration of title, yet the right to possess as vendees of the plaintiffs of the earlier suit depends on the acquisition of a valid title over the property. In the earlier suit, one of the issues was as to whether the plaintiffs have got title and possession over the plaint schedule property. This issue was answered in their favour. Admittedly, the plaintiffs in this case are the successors in interest of the earlier plaintiffs. The finding of that issue is under challenge in appeal. The appeal is now pending. If the defendants of O. S. 132/91 succeed in getting a decree in their favour negativing the title of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs in this suit would become non suited. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the learned Munsiff is justified in staying the proceedings in the present suit under S.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. It is submitted that the Appellate Court has already heard the arguments in the appeal arising out of the suit (O. S. No. 132/91) and the judgment has been reserved. The Appellate Court is directed to pronounce the judgment, if arguments have already been heard, within a week. The learned Munsiff is directed to dispose of the suit (O. S. No. 47/94) within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment of the Appellate Court. In this result, the revision is dismissed. No costs.