JUDGMENT A.S. BOPANNA, J.—The appellants herein are the Plaintiffs No. 5, 6 and 7 in O.S. No. 3634/1984. The plaintiffs No. l to 4 died during the pendency of the suit and as such, they are deleted since the other LRs i.e., remaining plaintiffs are already on record. The suit is filed seeking for the Judgment and Decree of partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs’ share which was claimed at 7/8th share at that stage. The Court below after considering the rival contentions has dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 15.04.2009. The surviving plaintiffs are before this Court in this appeal. 2. The suit was earlier decreed on 25.07.2002 but the same was assailed by the defendant herein in RFA No. 1176/2002. This Court by its judgment dated 17.12.2008 remanded the matter to the Court below. Reference is also required to an earlier suit in O.S. No. 966/80 between the parties. Hence, for the purpose of convenience and clarity, the parties would be referred by their names. 3. The original plaintiffs late Javaramma, A. Ashwathanarayana and Boranna who are presently deceased claim to be the wife and sons of late Andanappa while the surviving plaintiffs Ms. Lakshmidevamma, Ms. Adiyamma and Ms. Lakshmamma claim to be the daughters of late Andanappa. The defendant Ms. Mahadevamma not only denies that the plaintiffs are wife and children of late Andanappa but, on the other hand claims that she is the wife of late Andanappa. The defendant Ms. Mahadevamma is also stated to be the daughter of late Andanappa’s sister. In this situation, the rival claims arose to succeed to the suit schedule property left behind by late Andanappa which is described in the schedule to the suit. The plaintiffs Javaramma and children filed the suit in O.S. No. 95/75 before the Munsiff on 08.01.1975. The same was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge and renumbered as O.S. No. 966/80. The said suit was filed by Javaramma and children seeking for a declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit property which was owned by late Andanappa and to direct Smt. Mahadevamma to vacate and deliver vacant possession. 4. Though the material issues framed in that suit were held in favour of Smt. Javaramma and children holding that they are the legal representatives of late Andanappa and that defendant- Ms. 4. Though the material issues framed in that suit were held in favour of Smt. Javaramma and children holding that they are the legal representatives of late Andanappa and that defendant- Ms. Mahadevamma is not the wife of late Andanappa, the decree for absolute ownership of the entire property and eviction thereof was not granted but, it was held that Ms. Javaramma and children should seek for partition and separate possession. The said conclusion was for the reason that Ms. Madamma i.e., the mother of late Andanappa who was alive and was examined in that suit No. S. No. 966/1980 had executed a gift deed dated 16.08.1973 in favour of Ms. Mahadevamma after the death of Andanappa which was on 14.05.1973. Hence, the share to which Ms. Madamma was entitled as the mother of late Andanappa was held that it would get transferred by the said gift deed to Ms. Mahadevamma. Therefore, Ms. Mahadevamma was entitled to that share of Ms. Madamma. It is only for that reason, the declaration for the entire property was declined. Though the suit was dismissed with an observation to seek for partition, the findings attained finality and in that view, the instant suit was filed by Javaramma and children seeking for partition and separate possession of their respective shares as had been held in that suit. 5. It is exactly with such pleading relating to the earlier suit and the decision rendered therein which entitles Javaramma and children to seek their share excluding the share which would be available to Ms. Mahadevamma in view of the gift made by Madamma i.e., one other Class I legal heir of the deceased Andanappa, the instant suit in O.S. No. 3634/1984 is filed. Hence, relying on the findings of the earlier suit, the apportionment of their share and possession was sought. In addition, the decree for past mesne profits and enquiry into future mesne profits was sought. 6. The defendant-Ms. Mahadevamma on being served with the suit summons appeared and filed her written statement. The defence taken was the same which had been taken in the earlier suit between the same parties. 7. In that regard, it was once again alleged that Ms. Javaramma is not the wife of Andanappa and the other plaintiffs are not their children. The claim that the plaintiffs were living jointly with Andanappa during his life-time was also denied. The defence taken was the same which had been taken in the earlier suit between the same parties. 7. In that regard, it was once again alleged that Ms. Javaramma is not the wife of Andanappa and the other plaintiffs are not their children. The claim that the plaintiffs were living jointly with Andanappa during his life-time was also denied. The right to the schedule property as claimed by Javaramma and her children was also denied by contending that late Andanappa was not the owner of the property as covered under the sale deed dated 18.05.1962. In that context, it was contended that since the property was succeeded to by Ms. Madamma, she was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, it was further contended that the said Ms. Madamma having executed the gift deed dated 16.08.1973, the defendant Ms. Mahadevamma was entitled to the property. The defendant has further contended that the claim made by Ms. Javaramma and her children in O.S. No. 966/1980 was not successful inasmuch as the suit came to be dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 23.02.1984 and as such they are not entitled to claim any share in the suit schedule property. Hence the suit was resisted. 8. In the light of the rival contentions, the Court below framed as many as 7 issues which read as hereunder: (1) Whether 1st plaintiff is the wife and Plaintiffs No. 2 to 7 are the children of late B. Andanappa? (2) Whether Defendant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of late B. Andanappa? (3) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to 7/8th share in the suit property? (4) Whether defendant constructed suit house with her own funds?5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits-claimed? (6) To what decree? (7) Whether the suit is not maintainable for the reasons stated in Para.2(a) of the written statement?” 9. The parties had tendered evidence. The first plaintiff, who was alive at that point examined herself as PW.1 and relied upon the documents at Exhs.P1 to P10. The defendant Smt. Mahadevamma examined herself as DW.1 and a witness was also examined as DW.2 and the documents were marked as Exhs.D1 and D2. The parties had tendered evidence. The first plaintiff, who was alive at that point examined herself as PW.1 and relied upon the documents at Exhs.P1 to P10. The defendant Smt. Mahadevamma examined herself as DW.1 and a witness was also examined as DW.2 and the documents were marked as Exhs.D1 and D2. The Court below after analysing the evidence and taking note of the findings in the earlier suit had decreed the suit by its judgment dated 25.07.2002 by granting 7/8th share in the suit schedule property and the entitlement for separate possession was also held in their favour. The mesne profits was however not granted. The defendant Mahadevamma assailed it in the appeal in RFA No. 1176/2002. The contention put forth that the Court below could not have relied on the earlier findings and the question of constructive res judicata should have been considered by framing a separate issue was taken into consideration and the matter was remanded to frame additional issue. On remand, the additional issue was framed on 28.02.2009 which reads as hereunder: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of res judicata in view of the earlier findings recorded in O.S. No. 966/1980 ? 10. On remand, the parties have not tendered any further evidence. In that context, what is to be noticed is that at the first instance the Court below had held the issues No. 1, 3 and 5 in the affirmative in favour of Javaramma and her children while issues No. 2, 4 and 7 were held in the negative against the defendant Ms. Mahadevamma. As already noticed, this Court while remanding the matter had taken note of the decisions relating to constructive res judicata wherein it was held that it cannot be applied against a person who in the previous suit or proceedings had been successful. The further decision noticed was also whether the elements that constitute res judicata are present in a given case. In that context, when it was remanded in any case, the findings rendered in O.S. No. 966/1980 would still remain in force and it is in that context, it was required to consider whether the principles of res judicata would be applicable. 11. In that context, when it was remanded in any case, the findings rendered in O.S. No. 966/1980 would still remain in force and it is in that context, it was required to consider whether the principles of res judicata would be applicable. 11. In this background, what is relevant to be noticed is that by the additional issue which was framed on 28.02.2009 which has been extracted above, the Court below was to determine whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of res judicata in view of the earlier findings recorded in O.S. No. 966/1980. No grievance was made by either of the parties with regard to the framing of such issue. In that view, what was necessary to be considered by the Court below is not the entire reappreciation of the evidence, but to keep in view the questions that arose for consideration in the earlier suit and the finding on the issues raised therein and thereafter come to a conclusion whether the findings therein would act as res judicata or whether the dismissal of the earlier suit alone should be treated as res judicata against the plaintiff in the instant case. In fact the findings in the earlier suit would bar as res judicata against retrial of the similar issues herein to arrive at a different conclusion. 12. The law relating to that aspect in fact has been enunciated by this Court in the case of Hanumegowda vs. Sudarshanachar, ILR 1988(4) Kar 3238 which reads as hereunder: “There cannot be a collateral attack on a finding concluded by an earlier judgment between the same parties unless it be the earlier judgment was null and void….. 12. The law relating to that aspect in fact has been enunciated by this Court in the case of Hanumegowda vs. Sudarshanachar, ILR 1988(4) Kar 3238 which reads as hereunder: “There cannot be a collateral attack on a finding concluded by an earlier judgment between the same parties unless it be the earlier judgment was null and void….. The principle is that record of a previous Judgment estops parties from litigating an issue concluded by an earlier Judgment in which there is already a finding and the same is immune from collateral attack unless of course it so transpires that the earlier decision could be treated as void for some reason….An erroneous judgment by a competent Court cannot be meddled with subsequently by another Court nor can the latter permit itself the liberty of departing from the findings reached in the earlier proceedings although they may be wrong but, on the other hand, the alleged error in the Judgment, rendered earlier will continue to bind the parties unless of course it is set aside or reversed on appeal by a Superior Court.” 13. Similarly in another decision in the case of Yajman Gowraiah, Since deceased by his LRs vs. N.V.S. Shivaram, since deceased by his LRs and others, ILR 2009 Kar 2105 this Court has held as hereunder: “The finding on issue in a previous proceedings would act as res judicata and also as an estoppel in a subsequent proceedings. Merely because, the earlier suit was for the relief of permanent injunction alone, the finding recorded in the said proceedings cannot be held to be not binding on the parties in the subsequent suit for declaration of title. The test for determination whether the issue was directly and substantially an issue in an earlier proceedings or collateral or incidental. According to this test, if the issue was necessary to be decided for adjudicating on the principal issue, and was decided, it would have to be treated as “directly and substantially” an issue, and if it is clear that the judgment was intact based upon that decision, then it would be res judicata in a later case.” 14. According to this test, if the issue was necessary to be decided for adjudicating on the principal issue, and was decided, it would have to be treated as “directly and substantially” an issue, and if it is clear that the judgment was intact based upon that decision, then it would be res judicata in a later case.” 14. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of In re: Mehar Singh Saini, Chairman, HPSC and others, 2011 AIR SCW 5701 has held that it is impermissible to examine an order passed which has attained finality inter-se the parties that too in a collateral proceeding. It is further held that it will be opposed to the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatam. 15. In that view, what is relevant is not the end result alone of the earlier suit but the determination of the rights of the parties based on the issues arising and the conclusion thereof. Hence, the issues which were tried in the earlier suit in O.S. No. 966/1980 and the finding rendered on such issues which has attained finality would bind both the parties against whom it is held and not necessarily the plaintiff alone. Explanation-IV to Section 11 of CPC indicates that it applies to the defence also. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.J. Pinto and another vs. Sahebbi Kom Muktum Saheb (dead) by her legal representatives and others, AIR 1971 SC 2070 has held that the findings on issues which are not appealed against would operate against the party or would be hit by the principles of res judicata. The relevant issues framed in the earlier suit which are therefore to be considered by juxtaposing the same with the present issues are issues No. 1, 3 and 6 which would directly relate to the issues presently tried in the instant case since it is the decision on such issues which has given rise to the present suit. The said issues No. 1, 3 and 6 read as hereunder: (1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the heirs of late B. Andanappa @ Buddu ? (3) Does the defendant prove that she is the wife of late B. Andanappa @ Buddu ? (6) Does she further prove that she got the property through gift by Madamma during 16.08.1973 ? 16. (3) Does the defendant prove that she is the wife of late B. Andanappa @ Buddu ? (6) Does she further prove that she got the property through gift by Madamma during 16.08.1973 ? 16. In answer to the said issues, after considering the evidence available on record as tendered by both the parties, the Court below had held that Ms. Javaramma and children are the legal heirs of late Andanappa while answering issue No. 1 and in answer to issue No. 3, it was held that Ms. Mahadevamma is not the wife of late Andanappa. Insofar as the right claimed by Ms. Mahadevamma to the property, it was held that the property being that of late Andanappa, his mother Ms. Madamma would also be entitled to a share in the said property and since the same has been gifted by Ms. Madamma to Ms. Mahadevamma, she also has a share in the property and it is in that context, it was held that the plaintiffs cannot be declared as the absolute owners therein and it was also observed that the remedy for Javaramma and her children is to file a suit for partition in respect of the suit schedule property and to obtain the possession with respect to their share after partition by metes and bounds. It was further clarified that the declaration and possession was not granted therein since Ms. Mahadevamma had also acquired a right to the extent of the share of Ms. Madamma in the suit schedule property. The said findings therein is directly in relation to issue No. 1 and 2 raised in the instant suit. With regard to the ownership of the property, the same was not in issue except with regard to the construction of the house. 17. Thus, when findings were rendered on the issues framed in the earlier suit in the manner stated above, there is no scope to resist the suit with same defence seeking a different finding on similar questions framed in the nature of issues. In fact the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sulochana Amma vs. Narayanan Nair, (1994) 2 SCC 14 has discussed the object and applicability of res judicata to state that it is to accord finality to an issue which had arisen directly and substantially in the former suit between the same parties so that parties are not vexed twice over. It is based on public policy as well as private justice. 18. From the decisions noticed above and as evident from the provision contained in Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code, the bar of res judicata is to try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties etc. The issues which arise directly in the instant case have already been tried in the earlier suit insofar as the status of the parties and the nature of right to the properties. The issues have been held against the defendant Ms. Mahadevamma in the said suit. Though the relief was ultimately not granted therein, the reason for the same was also indicated and the nature of the relief was also left open to enable Ms. Javaramma and her children to seek for partition. Such finding and conclusion was in fact against Ms. Mahadevamma which was not questioned by her. 19. It is based on such finding and observation, the instant suit was filed. If a second suit was filed by Javaramma still claiming for absolute right to the property, the result of the earlier suit would bar them. In fact the findings rendered on the issues would on the other hand bar a different consideration of the similar issue between the same parties inter se on the defence taken up by Ms. Mahadevamma once over again to the same effect. When a particular finding has been rendered and when that has attained finality, there is absolutely no scope for arriving at a different conclusion based on the same facts and lesser evidence than what was tendered by the defendant in the earlier proceedings despite which the finding was against her. In that view of the matter, the suit filed by the Ms. Javaramma and others and presently continued by the Ms. plaintiffs No. 5, 6 and 7 in any event cannot be barred by res judicata merely because the declaration sought in the earlier suit was ultimately not granted when the issues have been held in their favour permitting them to seek a different relief. In the instant facts, the declaration therein was not granted solely due to the fact that the appropriate course to be followed was to file a suit for partition. In the instant facts, the declaration therein was not granted solely due to the fact that the appropriate course to be followed was to file a suit for partition. When such course has now been availed by the plaintiffs, the relief cannot be denied on the ground of res judicata operating against the plaintiff when the position is otherwise that there is already a finding against the defendant with regard to the contention that was put forth and in fact taking any other defence or a different finding would be barred by res judicata. Hence the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief. The additional issue framed by the Court below after remand would have to be held in the negative and in favour of the plaintiff. In that view, since the other issues are already decided between the parties earlier, the issues No. 1 to 3 will also have to be in favour of the plaintiffs. 20. The question that would however arise is with regard to the appropriate share to which the parties would be entitled. As noticed, the suit was filed by seven plaintiffs and including the defendant who had acquired her share through Ms. Madamma, the property was to be shared between 8 persons. However, during the pendency of the suit after its remand, the plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 have died and only plaintiffs No. 5,6 and 7 are surviving. In that view, the shares have enlarged and accordingly, the plaintiffs No. 5, 6 and 7 would have 1/4th share each while the defendant would be entitled to remaining 1/4th share. 21. In the result the following; ORDER (i) The appeal in RFA No. 10/2010 is allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree date 15.04.2009 passed in O.S. No. 3634/1984 is set aside and the suit is consequently decreed in part. (iii) It is hereby held that the plaintiffs No. 5, 6 and 7 are entitled to 1/4th share each and the defendantis entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. (iv) The prayer for past and further mesne profits is rejected. (v) The parties shall bear their own costs throughout. (vi) Draw up preliminary decree in the above terms.