L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) PLAINTIFFS in o. s. No. 151 of 1995, on the file of learned junior civil judge, mahabubnagar, are the appellants. They feel aggrieved by the judgment in a. s. No. 13 of 2000, on the file of learned ii additional district judge, mahabubnagar, dated 4. 3. 2004, reversing the judgment and decree dated 16. 12. 1999, in o. s. No. 151 of 1995. ( 2 ) THE appellants filed the suit against the respondent, for the relief of perpetual injunction in relation to ac. 3. 37 guntas of land in survey No. 209 of ramachandrapuram, hamlet of addakal village, mahabubnagar district. They pleaded title and possession over the land and complained that respondent was interfering with their possession. Earlier to this, the respondent filed o. s. No. 317 of 1994 in the same court against the appellants, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of ac. 13. 37 guntas of land in the same survey number, including the subject-matter of o. s. No. 151 of 1995. Through a common judgment, dated 16. 12. 1999, the trial court decreed o. s. No. 317 of 1994 and o. s. No. 151 of 1995 in its entirety. Perpetual injunction was granted in o. s. No. 317 of 2004, only in respect of ac. 10. 00, and as regards the balance, the suit was dismissed. ( 3 ) HE respondent filed a. s. No. 13 of 2000 in the court of learned ii additional district judge, mahabubnagar, aggrieved by the judgment and decree in o. s. No. 151 of 1995. The lower appellate court allowed the said appeal. ( 4 ) SRI A. Giridhar Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the respondent did not choose to file an appeal against the decree in o. s. No. 317 of 1994, which was disposed of through a common judgment along with o. s. No. 151 of 1985 and in that view of the matter, a. s. No. 13 of 2000, was barred by estoppel and res judicata. He places reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. B. D. Kaushal, AIR 1971 SC 1676 and judgment of this court in P. Narayana v. M. VV. Samaiah, 1990 (2) APLJ 465 . He places reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. B. D. Kaushal, AIR 1971 SC 1676 and judgment of this court in P. Narayana v. M. VV. Samaiah, 1990 (2) APLJ 465 . ( 5 ) SRI N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the plea of res judicata or estoppel was not raised by the appellants before the lower appellate court and it is not open to them to raise the same at this stage. He contends that the respondent did not feel the necessity to file an appeal against the decree in o. s. No. 317 of 1994, being under impression that substantial relief was granted therein and an appeal against the judgment and decree in o. s. No. 151 of 1995, would serve the purpose. ( 6 ) THE short question that falls for consideration, in the second appeal, is as to whether a. s. No. 13 of 2000 was barred by the principle of res judicata. It is a matter of record that o. s. No. 317 of 1995 filed by the respondent and o. s. No. 151 of 1995 filed by the appellants, in the same court, were disposed of by the common judgment, dated 16. 12. 1999. While the former was decreed in part, the latter was decreed in its entirety. The nature of relief, parties and subject-matter, are common to both the suits. The relief, which was granted to the appellants in o. s. No. 151 of 1995, was correspondingly rejected to the respondent in o. s. No. 317 of 1994. ( 7 ) THE question, as to whether the failure to file an appeal against one of the judgments or decrees disposed of through a common judgment, would attract the principle of res judicata, in the appeal, filed against the other matter covered by the same judgment was considered extensively, by the supreme court in Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar, AIR 1966 SC 1332 . It was held that where several proceedings to which the parties are common are disposed of through a common judgment, failure to prefer an appeal against one or some of proceedings covered by the judgment would bring about finality to it and the same would operate as res judicata in the appeals in relation to other proceedings covered by the common judgment. Same consequences follow even where appeals are filed but were dismissed on technical grounds or for non-prosecution. This was followed by this court in P. Narayana v. M. V. Samaiah s Case (supra ). Affirming the judgment rendered by a learned single judge on this point, a division bench held as under:"as stated above, it is clear that in both the suits, the title litigated is common, the matters directly and substantially in issue are common and in our opinion, the subject- matter is also common and therefore, we hold that the dismissal of tr. a. s. No. 2368 of 1987 for non-payment of translation and printing charges, by the high court, amounts to confirming that judgment of the trial court on merits and it operated as res judicata and the appeal a. s. No. 221 of 19 : 83 is barred by principle of res judicata. We, therefore, agree with our learned brother m. n. rao, j. , that a. s. No. 221 of 1983 was barred by principles of res judicata and liable to be dismissed on that ground. We, accordingly dismiss this appeal, but in the circumstances without costs. "to the same effect is the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. B. D. Kaushal s Case (supra ). ( 8 ) REVERTING to the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the respondent did not choose to file an appeal against the decree in o. s. No. 317 of 1994. Therefore, the principle gets attracted. A contention was advanced on behalf of the respondent that the plea of res judicata was not raised before the lower appellate court. This does not appear to be correct. In para 11 of the judgment, the lower appellate court dealt with this contention. Though there is some discrepancy as to the reference to the parties, the plea of res judicata was specifically dealt with and it was held that failure to prefer an appeal against the decree in os No. 317 of 1994 would operate as res judicata. In that view of the matter, the second appeal is allowed and the judgment in as No. 13 of 2000 on the file of learned ii additional district judge, mahabubnagar, is set aside. In that view of the matter, the second appeal is allowed and the judgment in as No. 13 of 2000 on the file of learned ii additional district judge, mahabubnagar, is set aside. ( 9 ) IT is, however, made clear that the judgment and decree in os No. 151 of 1995 shall operate as res judicata, insofar as it relates to the relief of injunction. As regards the other reliefs, it shall be open to the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law.