JUDGMENT : Anand Byrareddy, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel Shri S.B. Hebballi appearing for the Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel Shri B.M. Angadi appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal is preferred by defendant no.5 in a suit bearing no.OS 10/2010 filed before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bilagi Respondent nos.1 to 5 herein were the plaintiffs and respondent nos.6 to 9 were defendants no.1 to 4 and the present appellant was defendant no.5. The suit was for partition, whereby the plaintiffs claimed 5/7th share in the suit land bearing survey No.403/1A measuring 1 acre 20 guntas of Bilagi town. The present appellant was impleaded as the defendant, as the property had been purchased by the defendant. It was claimed by the plaintiffs, that the property in question was ancestral property of all the respondents and that it was land which was granted under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, to one Siddappa, who was the grandfather of the plaintiffs and accordingly they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the property. It is stated that during the lifetime of the father of the plaintiffs, namely, Mallappa, he was persuaded to sell the property for a paltry amount of Rs. 12,000/-, though it was worth more than Rs. 35 lakh as on the date of the suit. The said property was said to have been sold under a sham sale deed dated 1.7.1992 by the deceased Mallappa in favour of the appellant. It was on this premise, namely, that the sale transaction did not bind the plaintiffs that the suit was filed and the present appellant had resisted the suit on several grounds, including the ground that the suit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata as also being barred by time. It was further contended that there was an earlier suit filed by the deceased mother of the plaintiffs and the deceased brother of the plaintiffs, namely, Hanamawwa and Shekhappa, respectively, in O.S.No.11/1999 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilagi. 3. On the above and other pleadings, the court below had framed the following issues: "1. Whether plaintiffs prove that themselves and defendants constitute members of joint family and suit property is joint family property? 2. 3. On the above and other pleadings, the court below had framed the following issues: "1. Whether plaintiffs prove that themselves and defendants constitute members of joint family and suit property is joint family property? 2. Whether defendant no.5 prove that on 01.07.1992 deceased Mallappa as a karta of Hindu joint family sold suit property to her for his family and legal necessity ? 3. Whether defendant No.5 proves that suit was barred by time? 4. Whether defendant No.5 prove that suit is hit by Section 11 CPC? 5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought for?" The court below has answered issue no.1 in the affirmative, issue no.2 to 4 in the negative and issue no.5 partly in the affirmative and has decreed the suit. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal. 4. Shri S.B.Hebballi, would contend that in so for as the ground that the suit was barred by res judicata is concerned, the court below has failed to appreciate the legal position that would apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. In that, Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC' for brevity) was a clear bar for the court below to have tried the suit when an issue which directly and substantially arose in the former suit filed by the mother and brother of the plaintiffs was binding on the plaintiffs and the finding arrived at in that suit on the said issue, which was binding on the plaintiffs, precluded them from filing the suit and the court from entertaining the same. In this regard, he would draw attention to the tenor of Section 11 of the CPC and would also rely upon Explanation -6 appended thereto, to fortify his argument that not withstanding that the plaintiffs were not parties to the earlier suit, they are deemed to have claimed along with their mother and brother in the former suit and therefore Section 11 squarely applied. In this regard, he would place reliance on the following decisions of the Supreme Court. (a) Sulochanaamma v. Narayanan Nair, (1994) 2 SCC 14 , (b) Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Forward Construction Company Prabhat Mandal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Forward Construction Company Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) Andheri Prabhat Mandal, AIR 1986 SC 391 . In this regard, he would place reliance on the following decisions of the Supreme Court. (a) Sulochanaamma v. Narayanan Nair, (1994) 2 SCC 14 , (b) Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Forward Construction Company Prabhat Mandal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Forward Construction Company Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) Andheri Prabhat Mandal, AIR 1986 SC 391 . It is contended that the object of Section 11 is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and therefore the suit of the plaintiffs was a mere duplication of the very right and was the basis of the suit claim as brought by the mother and the deceased brother of the plaintiffs and hence was not maintainable. In that, it is pointed out that in both the suits, the main issue was as to whether the sale deed executed by the father of the plaintiffs Mallappa was binding on the plaintiffs or not. The very same assertion forming the basis of the former suit having been held against the deceased mother and the deceased brother of the plaintiffs would be equally binding on the plaintiffs, as the said finding has attained finality and cannot be reopened at the instance of the plaintiffs merely on the ground that they were not parties to the earlier suit and that therefore they would be entitled to file a fresh suit urging the very right or the basis under which the former suit was filed. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel, Shri Angadi would counter this argument and would assert that Section 11 mandates and lays down the parameters under which the doctrine of res judicata could be invoked. One of the ingredients is that the suit must be between the same parties. Admittedly, the present plaintiffs were not parties to the earlier suit. Though the earlier suit has been brought by the deceased mother and brother of the present plaintiffs, there is no mention of the genealogy or the family tree and the plaintiffs were minors and their interest was never addressed in the former suit. When there is not even a mention about the existence of these plaintiffs in that suit for all purposes, they have never agitated before the court below nor has their right been projected for consideration by the court in the former suit. When there is not even a mention about the existence of these plaintiffs in that suit for all purposes, they have never agitated before the court below nor has their right been projected for consideration by the court in the former suit. Hence, by a deeming fiction, it cannot be held that the right of these plaintiffs has been agitated in the former suit and it would be a miscarriage of justice if the plaintiffs are precluded from asserting their right. The trial court has therefore rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and there is no irregularity or illegality committed by the court below. The court below has afforded the reason that the plaintiffs were not claiming under their deceased brother and since Section 11 CPC requires that anyone having a similar right or claiming under the earlier plaintiffs alone would face the bar of res judicata and since the plaintiffs were not claiming under their brother, but asserting an independent right in the present suit, which was never urged or put forth in the former suit, they would not be precluded from doing so. Hence, he would seek to justify the finding of the court below in having decreed the suit notwithstanding that the former suit filed by the deceased mother and the deceased brother of the plaintiffs had been dismissed and had attained finality. 6. In the light of these rival contentions, it would be useful to reproduce Section 11 of the CPC which reads as follows: "No Court shall 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, or between parties under whom they or and of them claim, litigating under the same title., in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. Explanation I-The expression "former suit" shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto. Explanation II.- For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court. Explanation I-The expression "former suit" shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto. Explanation II.- For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court. Explanation III.- The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other. Explanation IV.- Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. Explanation V.- Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused. Explanation VI.- Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating. Explanation VII.- The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and reference in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to proceedings for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. Explanation VIII.- An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in as subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised." The above underlined portions would clearly indicate that the parties under whom they or anyone of them claim, litigating under the same title is crucial. The relationship of the plaintiffs in the former suit and the plaintiffs in the present suit is not denied nor is it denied that the basis for both the suits was that the sale deed executed by Mallappa, the father of the plaintiffs and the husband and father of plaintiffs in the former suit was not binding on the plaintiffs. The relationship of the plaintiffs in the former suit and the plaintiffs in the present suit is not denied nor is it denied that the basis for both the suits was that the sale deed executed by Mallappa, the father of the plaintiffs and the husband and father of plaintiffs in the former suit was not binding on the plaintiffs. As can be seen, the issues framed in the former suit were as follows: "1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit property is their ancestral property and they are having ?rd share in the suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the alleged Sale deed executed by Mallappa Haripalled, dated 1.7.1992 in respect of suit property is not binding upon their ?rd share in the suit property? 3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit property as on date of filing of the suit? 4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant is interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property? 5. Whether the defendant proves that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation ? 6. Whether the Court Fee paid by the plaintiffs is sufficient?" As can be seen, issue no.2 therein and issue no.2 in the present suit are in relation to the very same sale deed executed by Mallappa. In other words, the right, if any, of the plaintiffs turns on a finding on the said issue which has already been rendered and has attained finality. The right which the deceased brother of the plaintiff claimed in the former suit is no different from the right which the plaintiffs are claiming in the present suit. The court below having opined that in order to attract the bar of res judicata, the present plaintiffs ought to have claimed under the same title or under the same person and that since the plaintiffs were not claiming under their brother who was the plaintiff in the earlier suit, it would not bind them, is an erroneous proposition. Both the plaintiffs namely, plaintiffs in the earlier suit as well as in this suit were seeking to trace their title to the property de hors the sale deed executed by Mallappa. Therefore the common cause was to avoid the sale deed executed by Mallappa and that was an issue which has attained finality and could not be reagitated. Both the plaintiffs namely, plaintiffs in the earlier suit as well as in this suit were seeking to trace their title to the property de hors the sale deed executed by Mallappa. Therefore the common cause was to avoid the sale deed executed by Mallappa and that was an issue which has attained finality and could not be reagitated. Therefore, the suit was certainly barred by res judicata. In that view of the matter, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court. No order as to costs.