JUDGMENT : R.F.A.Nos.451 of 2005 and 535 of 2006 arise from the common judgment and decree dated 08.07.2005 in O.S.Nos.139 of 1993 and 35 of 1997 of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. O.S. No.139 of 1993 is for a decree for recovery of damages from the respondents/defendants. O.S.No.35 of 1997 is for declaration of title, recovery of possession, fixation of boundary and prohibitory injunction against further trespass. Learned Sub Judge, though after recording evidence in the cases answered the issue regarding res judicata against the appellants and dismissed the suits. Hence the appeals. 2. The first appellant and his mother filed O.S.No.130 of 1966 in the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram for a decree for recovery of possession, etc. against the Nemom panchayath (which has merged with the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation) for trespassing into the suit property. In that suit, a decree was granted. By the time the decree was sought to be executed, the mother expired. Appellants, claiming absolute right over the property in respect of which the decree was obtained, filed E.P,No.l26 of 1974 for execution of that decree, That petition-was dismissed as per order dated 06.11.2003 on the ground that decree cannot be executed. The order dated 06.11.2003 is under challenge in C.R.P.No.407 of 2004, 3. Parties are referred as appellants and respondents as in R.F.A.Nos.451 of 2005 and 535 of 2006. 4. It is claimed that 2.25Acres in survey 51/2 of Nemom panchayath, referred to in the A schedule of plaint in O.S.No.35 of 1997 originally belonged to the late Kesavan and on his death, it devolved on his legal representatives including the appellants and their deceased mother. Plaint B schedule in O.S.No.35 of 1997 is 18.690 cents situated towards southern portion of the said 2.25 Acres and extending east-west. Plaint C schedule therein is 9.153cents towards northern portion of the plaint B schedule (allegedly trespassed upon by the Nemom panchayath). 5. It is alleged that there was a pathway having width of 3 links along the southern side of the 2.25Acres referred to in the A schedule of the plaint in O.S.No35 of 1997. The Nemom panchayath attempted to trespass into the 2.25Acres for widening the said way. The first appellant and his mother filed O.S.No.130 of 1966 in the Munsiffs Court and obtained an order of injunction against trespass. The Nemom panchayath attempted to trespass into the 2.25Acres for widening the said way. The first appellant and his mother filed O.S.No.130 of 1966 in the Munsiffs Court and obtained an order of injunction against trespass. It is alleged that after service of the order of temporary .injunction, the Nemom panchayath trespassed into a portion of the said 2,25Acres and widened the 3 links wide way, into a 7 feet wide road. The plaint in O.S.No.130 of 1966 was amended to incorporate prayer for declaration of title, recovery of possession of the allegedly trespassed area and for damages. That suit was decreed on 20.12.1967. Though the Nemom panchayath filed A.S.No.420 of 1968 and further, a second appeal, those appeals were dismissed in confirmation of judgment and decree dated 20.12.1967 in O.S.No.130 of 1966. 6. It appears that during that time there were attempts made by the authorities concerned for acquisition of a portion of the land belonging to the appellants. Notifications were issued in that regard but nothing transpired. On 13.02.1979 a notification was" issued under Sec.3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire a portion of plaint A schedule in O.S.No.35 of 1997 for transportation facility. Appellants preferred objection to that notification. The notification was republished on 03.04.1984 for acquisition of 3.70Ares from the southern portion of the 2.25Acres referred to in the A schedule of plaint in O.S.No.35 of 1997. 7. Appellants challenged that notification in this Court in O.P.No.10288 of 1987. The notification for acquisition of 3.70 Ares was upheld. This Court however directed that the extent of land trespassed upon by the Nemom panchayath and identified by the Advocate Commissioner in the plan appended to the decree in O.S.No.130 of 1966 shall form part of the 3.70 Ares to be acquired as per notification republished on 03.04.1984. 8. It is the case of the appellants that the authorities did not measure out the trespassed area located by the Advocate Commissioner in the plan appended to the decree in O.S.No.150 of 1966 but proceeded to take possession of the 3.70 Ares excluding the trespassed area notwithstanding the direction contained in the judgment of this Court in O.P.No.10288 of 1987. 9. Aggrieved, the appellants came to this court with O.P.No.4029 of 1990. 9. Aggrieved, the appellants came to this court with O.P.No.4029 of 1990. The appellants prayed for a direction to the respondents therein to restore the excess land taken possession by the respondents as per notification dated 03.04.1984. This Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to identify and demarcate the property. The Advocate Commissioner, with the assistance of a Surveyor measured the property and submitted a. plan. This Court disposed of O.P.No.4029 of 1990 as per Ext.A4, judgment dated 07.07.1992 directing that the excess land taken possession by the respondents be returned to the appellants. 10. Respondents sought review of the said judgment. The review was allowed following which this Court- disposed of O.P.No.4029 of 1990 by ExLAl.2, revised judgment dated 07,01,1994, This Court in Ext.A.12, judgment issued a direction that the excess land identified by the Advocate Commissioner (in the plan obtained in O.P.No.4029 of 1990) be returned to the appellants. 11. According to the appellants, the respondents did not comply with the direction in Ext:. A12, judgment in 0.P.No.4029 of 1990. In the meantime, the appellants taking a cue from the observation in Ext.A12, judgment filed O.S.No.139 of 1993 for recovery of damages for (alleged) removal of improvements from the trespassed area, mental agony caused to the appellants and for cost of litigation etc. They also filed O.S.No.35 of 1997 for declaration of their title over the trespassed area, recovery of possession of the same, fixation of boundary and for prohibitory injunction against further trespass. Before the institution of O.S.Nos.139 of 1993 and 35 of 1997 the appellants issued statutory notices. The panchayath gave a reply denying the allegation of trespass while the Government chose to keep mum. 12. Respondents resisted O.S.Nos.139 of 1993 and 35 of 1997 on various grounds including that those suits are barred by the res judicata in view of the judgments in O.P. Nos.10288 of 1987 and 4029 of 1990. 13. Learned Munsiff framed various issues including res judicata and answered that issue against the appellants consequent to which they were non suited. 14. In the meantime, some persons of the locality, claiming to be interested in the matter filed O.S.No.499 of 1993 in the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. With an adverse finding against the appellants on issue No.3, that suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 28.07.2001. 14. In the meantime, some persons of the locality, claiming to be interested in the matter filed O.S.No.499 of 1993 in the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. With an adverse finding against the appellants on issue No.3, that suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 28.07.2001. Dismissal of O.S.No.499 of 1993 was challenged by the plaintiffs therein in A.S.No.16 of 2003 while the appellants challenged the finding against them in A.S.No.192 of 2002. The District Court, by judgment dated 15.10.2007 dismissed A.S.No.16 of 2003 and allowed A.S.No.192 of 2002. The result is that there is no adverse finding against the appellants in O.S.No.499 of 1993. 15. The appellants in the meantime sought execution of the decree in O.S.No.130 of 1966. The executing court held that the decree in O.S.No.130 of 1966 has become not executable and dismissed E.P.No.126 of 1974. Hence C.R.P.No.407 of 2004. 16. The following points arise for a decision: (i) Whether the judgments in O.P.Nos.10288 of 1987 and 4029 of 1990 operate as res judicata affecting maintainability of O.S.Nos.139 of 1993 and 35 of 1997? (ii) Whether the decree in O.S. No.130 of 1966 has become in executable due to subsequent events? 17. Sri. R.S. Kalkura, learned counsel for the appellants .has contended that finding of learned Sub Judge that O.S.Nos.139 of 1993 and 35 of 1997 are barred by res judicata is erroneous. Learned counsel argues that in effect attempt of the appellants in filing O.S.No.35 of 1997 is to enforce the decision in the original petitions above stated. It is also argued that at any rate since there is a prayer for recovery of possession, fixation of boundary and prohibitory injunction O.S.No, 35 of 1997 cannot be said to be barred by res judicata. Learned counsel further argues that in Ext.A12, revised judgment in 0.P.No.4029 of 1990 this Court has given the option to the appellants to move the Civil Court for recovery of damages and hence O.S.No.139 of 1993 is maintainable. Learned counsel also pointed out that in the reply to the statutory notice issued to the Nemom panchayath, the stand taken by it is that there was no trespass while the Government did not even reply to the notice issued it. 18. Learned Government Pleader and learned Senior Advocate, Sri. Nandakumara Menon appearing for the respondents supported the finding of the court below. 18. Learned Government Pleader and learned Senior Advocate, Sri. Nandakumara Menon appearing for the respondents supported the finding of the court below. It is argued that the judgments in O.P.No.10288 of 1987 and 4029 of 1990 would operate as res judicata and a fresh suit is barred. 19. There could be little doubt that the judgment in a writ petition will operate as res judicata in the civil suit between the same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of. the claim, litigating under the same title in which the issue was directly and substantially in issue. 'Res judicata', in essence is 'estoppel by judgment'. The rule of estoppel prevents a person who, by his declaration, act or omission has intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, from denying the truth of that thing. Res judicata bars the court from investigating and deciding an issue which was directly and substantially in issue in a former proceeding and which was heard and decided. 20. Ext.A3 is the copy of judgment dated 14.02.1990 in O.P.No.10288 of 1987. There, in paragraph 4, this Court observed that the 3.70Ares acquired (as per notification dated 03.04.1984) did not include the 6.434 cents into which the Nemom panchayath had encroached (as found in the judgment and decree in O.S.No.130 of 1966 and which became final) and that the said fact was not denied in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in O.P.No.10288 of 1987. This Court also observed that if that be so, acquisition of land to the north of the trespassed area (found in O.S.No.130 of 1966) will adversely affect enjoyment of the property by the appellants. If the purpose of acquisition was widening of. the existing road, the requisitioning and acquisition authorities should have acquired the land which was the subject matter of O.S,No,130 of 1966 as evidenced, by the judgment and decree in that suit. There was no justification for leaving out that property from acquisition. This Court directed in Ext.A3, judgment that acquisition of 3.70Ares for widening of the road must be inclusive of the 6.434 cents (found to have been trespassed upon by the Nemom pancbayath as per judgment and decree in O.S.No.130 of 1966). 21. Then came Ext.A4, judgment dated 07.07.1992 in 0.P.No.4029 of 1990. This Court directed in Ext.A3, judgment that acquisition of 3.70Ares for widening of the road must be inclusive of the 6.434 cents (found to have been trespassed upon by the Nemom pancbayath as per judgment and decree in O.S.No.130 of 1966). 21. Then came Ext.A4, judgment dated 07.07.1992 in 0.P.No.4029 of 1990. There, in paragraph 3 this Court referred to the report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the original petition. This Court observed that the report and plan show that excess extent was taken possession by the respondents while taking possession of the property pursuant to the notifications. Hence it was directed that the District Collector, Thiruvananthapurarn (the third respondent in O.P.No.4029 of 1990) shall resume to the appellants the excess land of 3.95cents taken possession (after including the trespassed area found in O.S.No.130 of 1966 also as part of the acquisition) by the respondents and more particularly described in the plan and report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner in O.P.No.4029 of 1990. 22. Ext.A12, revised judgment dated. 7.01.1994 in O.P. No.4029 of 1990 also found, based on the report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner that the respondents had taken possession of more land without considering the trespassed area found in O.S.No.130 of 1966. This Court observed that though the acquisition is in respect of 3.70 Ares including the 6.434 cents covered by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.130 of 1966 while taking possession the LAO had not taken into account the land already trespassed upon by the Nemom panchayath (ie 6,434 cents marked in the plan in O.S.No.130 of 1966 and referred to in the plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner in O.P.No.4029 of 1990) and thus the respondents have taken possession of an additional area of 9.25 cents unauthorisedly. This Court; held that the appellants are entitled to get back the excess land. 23. So far as damages claimed by the appellants in O.P.No.4029 of 1990 is concerned, this Court observed in Ex.t.A12, judgment that the said claim may be agitated before the appropriate forum if the appellants are legally justified to do so., Hence the judgment in O.P.No.4029 of 1990 and for that matter, the judgment in O.P.No. 10288 of 1987 would not operate as res judicata affecting maintainability of O.S.No.139 of 1993. 24. This Court while disposing of the writ petitions by Exts.A3, A4 and A12 had. 24. This Court while disposing of the writ petitions by Exts.A3, A4 and A12 had. not Permitted the appellants to execute those judgments in any forum. On going through Exts.AS, A4 and A12, judgments what! can find is thai, those judgments are more in the nature of declarations though, certain directions are also issued. Moreover, reliefs of fixation of boundary and injunction are also prayed for in O.S.No.85 of 1997 which questions were not involved in O.P.Nos.10288 of 1987 and 4029 of 1990 not to say, directly and/or substantially. 25. I stated that res judicata in essence is estoppal by judgment and that the question of estoppal would arise only when the appellants have, by their declaration, act or omission made the respondents believe a thing to be true and the respondents have acted on that belief to their detriment. That situation does not arise here. The judgments in O.P.Nos.10288 of 1987 and 4029 of 1990 cannot operate as res judicata against the appellants to the extent of findings in favour of the appellants. If there is any finding in those judgments against the claim made by the appellants in O.S.Nos.1.39 of 1993 and 35. of 1997, only those findings against the appellants would operate as res judicata against them. The findings in the judgments in O.P.Nos.10288 of 1987 and 4 029 of 1990 m favour of the appellants would only support their claim. In N.T. Varkey v. State Bank of Travancore 1985 KLJ 19 . 1 a second suit on a mortgage when the liability under an earlier decree in a suit based on the same mortgage was not discharged, was found to be not barred by res judicata. Here, at any rate, the directions in Exts.A3, A4 and/or A12, judgments are not complied by the respondents as pleaded by the appellants. The trial court ought to have considered whether Exts.A3, A4 and A12, judgments would operate as res judicata on the claim if any made by the respondents against the finding in those judgments. 26. In that view of the mailer, I am inclined to hold : hat the finding entered by the learned Sub judge that O.S.Nos.139 of 1993 and 35 of 1997 are barred by res judicata is erroneous and is liable to be interfered with. 26. In that view of the mailer, I am inclined to hold : hat the finding entered by the learned Sub judge that O.S.Nos.139 of 1993 and 35 of 1997 are barred by res judicata is erroneous and is liable to be interfered with. The said suits to the extent they do not go against any findings m the judgments in O.P.Nos.10288 of 1987 and 4029 of 1990 are not barred by res judicata. 27. Since the other issues involved in O.S.Nos.139 of 1993 and 35 of 1997 are not answered by the learned Sub Judge, the appellants cannot straight away ask for reliefs in these appeals. The suits have to go back to the trial court for decision on other issues. 28. So far as the order dismissing E.P.No.126 of 1974 in O.S.No.130 of 1966 is concerned, I am inclined to uphold it as tie decree has become inexecutable by subsequent events. Exts.A3, A4 and/or A12, judgments direct that the encroached area (allowed to be recovered as per the decree in O.S.No.130 of 1966) shall form part of the 3,70Ares acquired as per notification dated 03.04.1984. Executability of the decree in O.S.No.130 of 1966 is affected by the notification for acquisition and Exts.A3, A4 and/or Ext.A12; judgments. The result is that though the judgment and decree in O.S.No.130 of 1966 would stand so far as the finding and decision taken therein are concerned, execution of that decree has become impossible in view of the subsequent events stated above. Hence dismissal of E.P.No.126 of 1974 in O.S.No.130 of 1966 calls for no interference. 29. The result of my above discussion is that the finding entered by the learned Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in O.S.Nos.139 of 1993 and 35 of 1997 that those suits barred by res judicata is erroneous. As earlier stated, Exts.A3, A4 and A12, judgments do not bar O.S.Nos.139 of 1993 and 35 of 1997. So far as the claim of the appellants in the suits do not contradict the findings in Exts.A3, A4 and A12. Other issues involved in O.S.No.139 of 1993 and 35 of 1997 are to be decided by the learned Sub judge based on the evidence on record and after allowing the parties to adduce further evidence if any. Dismissal of E.P.No.126 of 1974 in O.S.No.130 of 1966 does not call for interference. Other issues involved in O.S.No.139 of 1993 and 35 of 1997 are to be decided by the learned Sub judge based on the evidence on record and after allowing the parties to adduce further evidence if any. Dismissal of E.P.No.126 of 1974 in O.S.No.130 of 1966 does not call for interference. Resultantly, the appeals and civil revision are disposed-of as under : R.F.A.Nos.451 of 2005 (1) Finding entered by the learned sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in the judgment in O.S.No.139 of 1993 that the suit is barred by res judicata in view of the judgments of this Court in O.P.Nos.10288 of 1987 and 4029 of 1990 is set aside. (ii) Judgment and decree in O.S.No.139 of 1993 are set aside. That suit is remitted to the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for decision on other issues involved in the suit. R.F.A.Nos.535 of 2006 : (i) Finding entered by the learned sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in the judgment in O.S.No.35 of 1997 that the suit is barred by res judicata in view of the judgments of this Court in O.P.Nos.10288 of 1987 and 4029 of 1990 is set aside (ii) Judgment and decree in O.S.No.35 of 1997 are set aside. That, suit is remitted to the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for decision of other issues involved in the suit. (iii) Learned Sub Judge is directed to dispose of the suits based on the evidence on record and after permitting them to adduce further evidence, if any. The revision petition is dismissed in confirmation of dismissal of E.P.No.126 of 1974 in O.S.No.130 of 1966 of the Additional Munsiffs Court, Thiruvananthapuram. (IV) The parties in O.S.Nos.139 of 1993 and 35 of 1997 shall appear in the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram on 30.09.2013. (V) Learned Sub judge is directed to dispose of the suits as early as possible giving it top priority having regard to the fact that suits are of the year, 1993 and 1997, respectively and at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.