Judgment :- All these appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore in O.S.No. 214 of 1985, O.S.No. 218 of 1986 and O.S.No. 220 of 1986 and they are dealt with together. 2. One Natarajam Pillai and his wife Kasturibai Ammal along with their minor son Ramasami brought suit in O.S.No. 214/85 against Jayalakshmi Ammal, Ramamurthi Reddy and Alwar Chettiar for a decree for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' 2/3rd share of the suit property against defendants 1 and 2 and for a decree of a mandatory injunction against third defendant to restore the damaged wall and for a prohibitory injunction against the third defendant from trespassing on the suit property. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property was a portion of the house-site carved out of a private pathway and they had purchased 2/3rd undivided share of the original owners of the suit property and the first defendant had purchased 1/3rd undivided share of the same from the original owners and the third defendant, who recently purchased the house situated in the north of the lane, demolished a portion of the wall on the lane and put up a doorway for access in the lane. 3. One Elumalai and Ramamurhi instituted suit in O.S.No. 218/86 against Natarajan Pillai, his wife Kasthuri Ammal and Jayalakshmi Ammal for declaration of plaintiffs' right of customary easement to use the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' enjoyment of the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property, alleged to have been purchased by the defendants, is used as a road for several decades and the public including the plaintiffs are using it as of right and have acquired the right of customary easement. 4. Jayalakshmi Ammal has filed the suit in O.S.No. 220/86 against Natarajan Pillai and his wife Kasthuri Ammal for declaration of her right to use the common lane and for a mandatory injunction for removal of the construction made by the defendants in the common lane. Her case was that the suit property was a lane and she has purchased 1/3rd share in it and the defendants claimed to have purchased 2/3rd share in it and the plaintiff was using the lane for taking carts and the defendants have made encroachments by way of construction in the lane. 5. Her case was that the suit property was a lane and she has purchased 1/3rd share in it and the defendants claimed to have purchased 2/3rd share in it and the plaintiff was using the lane for taking carts and the defendants have made encroachments by way of construction in the lane. 5. All the three suits were tried together by the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore and they were disposed of by a common judgment, but separate decrees were prepared in each suit. In all the three suits, the suit property was one and the same i.e., the lane. The main issue was also common in all the suits. In addition, there were other issues in each case respecting the particular merits thereof. The finding of the Subordinate Judge on the common issue was that the suit lane is a public lane and the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any share in it. 6. In view of the finding on the common issue, the Subordinate Judge negatived the prayer for partition sought for by the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 214/85 insofar as defendants 1 and 2 are concerned and dismissed the suit and insofar as the prayer for mandatory injunction against the third defendant is concerned, decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the decision as to the relief of partition is concerned, the plaintiffs have preferred appeal in A.S.No. 108 of 1988. Aggrieved by the decree for mandatory injunction, the third defendant has preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 795 of 1987. 7. As per the finding on the common issue, the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit as prayed for in O.S.No. 218/86 and aggrieved by that, the defendants have preferred appeal in A.S.No. 1371 of 1988. Similarly, the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit in O.S.No. 220 of 1986 insofar as the prayer for declaration is concerned and dismissed the suit with regard to the prayer for mandatory injunction. Against that, the defendants have preferred appeal in A.S.No. 1370 of 1988. 8. In the above four appeals, there is a common issue, namely, whether the suit lane is a public lane. When the appeals are pending in this Court, Jayalakshmi Ammal died. She is the sole respondent in the appeal in A.S.No. 1370/88 and the legal representatives were not brought on record in time and the above appeal abated. 9. 8. In the above four appeals, there is a common issue, namely, whether the suit lane is a public lane. When the appeals are pending in this Court, Jayalakshmi Ammal died. She is the sole respondent in the appeal in A.S.No. 1370/88 and the legal representatives were not brought on record in time and the above appeal abated. 9. In the present three appeals, the said Jayalakshmi Ammal was one of the respondents in each appeal and since the legal representatives were not brought on record in time, the appeals insofar as she is concerned stood abated. 10. It is urged that in view of the abatement of appeal in A.S.No. 1370/88, the decision on the common issue with regard to the suit lane had become res judicata and the ruling of the Supreme Court in Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar, is relied on as direct authority for the proposition. In that case, four suits were tried together and disposed of by a Common Judgment and some issues were common besides other issues in each case on merits thereof. Four appeals were preferred in the High Court of Allahabad and the High Court dismissed one appeal as being time barred and dismissed one appeal on the ground of failure of appellant to apply for Translation and Printing of the records as required by the rules of the High Court. It was argued that the finding on the common issue had become final on account of dismissal of two appeals and the High Court came to the conclusion that Section 11 C.P.C. is applicable and dismissed the appeals as barred by res judicata. On further appeal, the Supreme Court laid down the law and the relevant portions of the Judgment are extracted. "We are therefore of opinion that where a decision is given on the merits by the trial Court and the matter is taken in appeal and the appeal is dismissed on some preliminary ground, like limitation or default in printing, it must be held that such dismissal when it confirms the decision of the trial Court on the merits itself amounts to the appeal being heard and finally decided on the merits whatever may be the ground for dismissal of the appeal. It now remains to refer to certain decisions which were cited at the bar in this connection. . . . . . It now remains to refer to certain decisions which were cited at the bar in this connection. . . . . . The next case to which reference may be made in Obdedur Rahman v. Darbari Lal, 1927 AIR(Lah) 1. In that case there were five appeals before the High Court three of which had abated. There was a common issue in all the five appeals namely, whether a certain lease had expired or not and it was urged that in view of the abatement of the three other appeals, the decision of that issue had become res judicata. The contention was overruled by the observation that" where there has been an appeal, the matter is no longer res judicata but res sub judice and where an appeal is not finally heard and decided any matters therein cannot possibly be said to be res judicata. "This view in our opinion is incorrect. We may in this connection refer to Ahmad Ali Khan v. Hinga Lal, 21 ILR(Luck) 586 : 1947 AIR(Oudh) 74, where it was held that where the appeal was struck off as having abated, the decision would operate as res judicata. If the view taken by the Lahore High Court is correct, the result would be that there may be inconsistent decisions on the same issue with respect to the point involved in that case, namely, whether a certain lease had expired or not and the very object of res judicata is to avoid inconsistent decisions. Where therefore the result of the dismissal or abatement of an appeal is to confirm the decision of the trial Court on the merits such dismissal must amount to the appeal being heard and finally decided and would operate as res judicata. . . . . . Our conclusion on the question of res judicata raised in the present appeals is this. Where the trial Court has decided two suits having common issues on the merits and there are two appeals therefrom and one of them is dismissed on some preliminary ground, like limitation or default in printing, with the result that the trial Court's decision stands confirmed, the decision of the appeal Court will be res judicata and the appeal Court must be deemed to have heard and finally decided the matter. In such a case the result of the decision of the appeal Court is to confirm the decision of the trial Court given on merits, and if that is so the decision of the appeal Court will be res judicata whatever may be the reason for the dismissal. . . . . . . In this view of the matter, the appeals must fail, for the trial Court had in the present case decided all the four suits on the merits including the decision on the common issues as to title. The result of the dismissal on a preliminary ground of the two appeals arising out of suit Nos. 77 and 91 was that the decision of the trial Court was confirmed with respect to the common issues as to title by the High Court. In consequence the decision on those issues became res judicata so far as appeal Nos. 365 and 366 are concerned and S. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure would bar the hearing of those common issues over again. It is not in dispute that if the decision on the common issues in suit Nos. 77 and 91 has become res judicata, appeal Nos. 365 and 366 must fail." 11. In the above decision, the Apex Court has declared that the abatement of an appeal is to confirm the decision of the trial Court on the merits and such dismissal must amount to the appeal being heard and finally decided and would operate as res judicata. 12. In the present case, the trial Court had decided all the three suits on the merits including the decision on the common issue. The result of the abatement of appeal in A.S.No. 1370 of 1988 was that the decision of the trial Court was confirmed with respect to the common issue by the High Court. In consequence, the decision on the common issue becameres judicatainsofar as these appeals are concerned and Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code would bar the hearing of the common issue over again. In view of the decision on the common issue has becomeres judicata, these appeals must fail. 13. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. No costs. Appeals dismissed.