JUDGMENT : N. SATHISH KUMAR, J. Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 05.02.2019 passed in O.S. No. 25 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Thoothukudi. 1. A challenge has been made in this first appeal against the decree and judgment of the trial Court, dismissing the suit in a preliminary issue holding that the present suit is barred by principles of res-judicata. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal suit is as follows: The suit property to an extent of 1.15 acres has been originally purchased by Thomas Adamsan Iyar for the Society for the Propagation of the Gospal in Foreign Parts (S.P.G.) on 06.01.1880. The original survey number of the suit property is 226. Thereafter, the survey number of the suit property is 243/2 and now the survey numbers of the suit property are 328/4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. The plaintiffs Diocese obtained necessary permission with the Bhisop in the year 1929 and the Church was constructed in the suit property. On 04.12.1963, the suit property was transferred to the plaintiffs. From the date of such deed, they are in possession of the property and now, it is the control of Churches of South India Trust Association (CSITA) Thoothukudi-Nazereth Diocese. When the matter stood thus, few years back, the first defendant belonging to the Hindu Community with the help of his majority people, trespassed into the Item Nos. 6 and 7 of the suit property and encroached to an extent of 12 cents. Out of which, they put up one Karupasamy Temple in 2 cents and in the remaining 10 cents, they put up one Pillaiyar Temple. Despite several requests have been made by the plaintiffs Diocese for recovery of possession and removal of encroachment, the defendants refused the same. When the plaintiffs applying the copy of the settlement proceedings, on 17.03.2014, they came to know that in the year 1958 itself the property has been sub-divided and the property has been classified as defendants' property. Hence, the settlement effected is null and void. The defendants 1 to 7 obtained the Patta by false representation. Besides that, they also made an attempt to prevent the plaintiffs and his men from approaching the Church. Hence, the settlement effected is null and void. The defendants 1 to 7 obtained the Patta by false representation. Besides that, they also made an attempt to prevent the plaintiffs and his men from approaching the Church. Hence, the suit in O.S. No. 25 of 2014 has been filed for declaration in respect of Item Nos. 1 to 7 and declare that classification of settlement records is null and void, sought injunction in respect of 5th item of the suit property and also recovery of possession in respect of 6th and 7th items of the property, after removal of encroachment. 3. Denying the allegations, it is the contention of the defendants that the survey number mentioned in the plaint is not correct. Originally, the survey number of the suit property is Jameen Adangal Survey No. 8. During settlement proceedings, it classified as 243/2. The sale deed dated 06.01.1880 is not connected to the suit properties. The plaintiffs herein already filed a suit in respect of the property covered under the sale deed dated 06.01.1880 and the matter reached finality and the suit was dismissed and the title of the defendants and the plaintiffs has not been established. The present suit has been filed suppressing the same. The survey number referred in the plaint and the extent shown in the schedule of properties are no way connected. The property purchased by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospal in Foreign Parts (S.P.G.) is no way connected to the suit properties. The defendants have also denied the alleged trespass and putting up of a construction and the allegation that the plaintiffs came to know about the settlement proceedings in the year 2014 is highly improbable, in fact, the plaintiffs have conducted many cases from the year 1988, in respect of the suit property. The subject matter of the suit is already decided in the former suit between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Hence, the suit is barred by principles of res-judicata. 4. When the suit was pending before the trial Court, the defendants took up an application in I.A. No. 97 of 2015, seeking rejection of the plaint. The same was dismissed by the trial Court. As against which, the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. (MD) No. 1485 of 2016 has been filed by the respondents 2 and 3 herein. 4. When the suit was pending before the trial Court, the defendants took up an application in I.A. No. 97 of 2015, seeking rejection of the plaint. The same was dismissed by the trial Court. As against which, the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. (MD) No. 1485 of 2016 has been filed by the respondents 2 and 3 herein. In the above Civil Revision Petition, this Court has passed the following order: “1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 10.02.2016 in I.A. No. 97 of 2015 in O.S. No. 25 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Tuticorin. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 would submit that for taking the plea as a preliminary issue, both the parties are directed to produce all the necessary documents and file a written statement. 3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the written statement already filed and the issue has already framed, but the question of res-judicata has to be decided as a preliminary issue. 4. Both the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents have no objection for deciding the question of res-judicata as a preliminary issue. 5. Considering the above said submission, the II Additional District Judge, Tuticorin is directed to decide the question of res-judicata as a preliminary issue in I.A. No. 97 of 2015 in O.S. No. 25 of 2014 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.” 5. Based on the above directions, it appears that I.A. No. 97 of 2015 was allowed by the trial Court without any oral evidence. As against which, one of the appellant herein has preferred the appeal in A.S. (MD) No. 191 of 2018 before this Court. This Court set aside the order of the trial Court in I.A. No. 97 of 2015 and restored the suit and remitted to the file of the trial Court and directed the trial Court to frame a preliminary issue regarding res-judicata and decide the same in accordance with law, after permitting the parties to let in evidence and mark the documents in the suit. Thereafter, the impugned judgment has been passed. Thereafter, the impugned judgment has been passed. After giving opportunity to both the parties, the trial Court examined PW-1 and marked Exs.A1 to A12 on the side of the plaintiffs and examined DW-1 and marked Exs.B1 to B18 on the side of the defendants. 6. On perusal of the evidence and materials, the trial Court has found that the subject matter of the earlier suit between the same parties and their representatives are barred by the principles of res-judicata. As against which, the present appeal came to be filed. 7. Mr. G. Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the trial Court has not taken into consideration of the fact that the previous suit is not in respect of the entire suit properties. In fact, the declaration is sought only in respect of 10 cents viz. 3rd item of the suit property in the previous suit. The declaration is sought only on the ground that those properties were gifted by some third parties to the Church. Only in the above background, the trial Court has held that the plaintiffs have established the title in the above suit. Hence, it is the contention that the Court below has not considered the fact that how the property was derived by the plaintiffs. It is the further contention that the title is not in issue in the earlier suit in respect of the entire suit property. The oral gift alone in respect of the 3rd item of the suit property in the previous suit was an issue. Hence, his contention is that the suit is not barred by res-judicata and he prayed for allowing the appeal. 8. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the plaintiffs claim title in respect of 1.15 acres, based on the document of the year 1880. In the previous suit, the plaintiffs have included the above suit property, which was subject matter of document dated 06.01.1880 and cleverly not given the survey number and only the boundaries were given. Whereas, in the present suit only, the survey numbers were shown and no boundaries given. Hence, it is the contention that the document of the year 06.01.1880 was already considered by this Court and the finding has been recorded that the plaintiffs have not established the title. Whereas, in the present suit only, the survey numbers were shown and no boundaries given. Hence, it is the contention that the document of the year 06.01.1880 was already considered by this Court and the finding has been recorded that the plaintiffs have not established the title. Though there was no specific issue in respect of the entire suit property, the matter was agitated in respect of the rights of the parties and the matter reached the finality. The plaint plan filed before the trial Court in the earlier suit and the Commissioner's Report clearly indicate that the south of the plaint plan, the plaintiffs did not have any right over the properties. Those properties were Natham and given a Patta under settlement in the year 1958 itself and all along in possession of the Hindu Community and the temples are very much available. Hence, it is the contention that in the previous suit, the rights of the plaintiffs have already decided in respect of the title said to have been derived. Whereas, now in the present suit, without showing any boundaries, the plaintiffs sought for declaration to the entire extent, which was already negatived and decided in the former suit. Hence, it is the contention that the suit is nothing but abuse of process of law not only barred by the principles of res-judicata, but also barred by the principles of re-litigation and the trial Court has considered the entire aspect and dismissed the suit on the ground that the present suit is barred by principles of res-judicata. 9. Now, the points arise for consideration in this appeal are: (i) whether the subject matter of the present suit is already subject matter in the former instituted suit which has reached finality in O.S. No. 55 of 1988. (ii) whether the rights of the parties with regard to the entire suit properties already decided in the previous suit, if not what the parties are entitled to. 10. The suit has been filed for declaration in respect of item Nos. 1 to 7. Based on Ex.A1/ sale deed, dated 06.01.1880, the suit property said have been purchased by one Thomas Adamsan Iyar for the Society for Propagation of the Gospal in Foreign Parts (S.P.G.) and under Ex.A4, dated 04.12.1963 document, the second plaintiff has acquired the property said to have purchased under Ex.A1. 1 to 7. Based on Ex.A1/ sale deed, dated 06.01.1880, the suit property said have been purchased by one Thomas Adamsan Iyar for the Society for Propagation of the Gospal in Foreign Parts (S.P.G.) and under Ex.A4, dated 04.12.1963 document, the second plaintiff has acquired the property said to have purchased under Ex.A1. The present suit has been proceeded on a premise that the entire suit property to an extent of 1.15 acres is covered under Ex.A1 and A4 and the plaintiffs were in possession of the entire suit property. Recently in the year 2014, they came to know about the classification in the settlement survey in the year 1958 and item Nos. 6 and 7 were classified as Karuppasamy Temple and Pillayar Temple for 12 cents. It is the further case that the defendants being the dominant Hindu Community have encroached upon the item Nos.6 and 7 of the suit property few years back and put up the temples. Absolutely, there is no pleading as to when such encroachment took place. It is also relevant to note the entire plaint pleadings and schedule of properties. The boundaries of the properties had never shown and never given, except stating that the total extent is 1.15 acres. Paragraph No. 4 of the plaint states that the suit property was purchased under Ex.A1. Thereafter, they have developed the property and put up the Church. The entire extent of the property is 1.15 acres. They also sought declaration to declare the settlement proceedings effected in the year 1958 is null and void. The entire pleadings of the present plaint does not even disclose the previous suit filed by them in O.S. No. 55 of 1988, which has reached up to the Apex Court, wherein the Special Leave Petition filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed. 11. In the above background, now, it has to be seen what was the nature of the suit filed by the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties. Previously, the plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S. No. 55 of 1988 before the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti. The plaint of the previous suit is also marked as Ex.A8. In the previous suit, the plaintiffs sought for a relief of declaration of the third schedule property. Previously, the plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S. No. 55 of 1988 before the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti. The plaint of the previous suit is also marked as Ex.A8. In the previous suit, the plaintiffs sought for a relief of declaration of the third schedule property. In the above plaint, three schedules were shown and the first schedule shown as 1.15 acres in Vembar Village, Vilathikulam Taluk with specific boundaries, second schedule shown as 5 cents with specific boundaries and the third schedule shown as 5 cents with specific boundaries. Further, it is also the case of the plaintiffs that they traced the title to the extent of 1.15 acres only under Ex.A1 filed in the present suit. Similarly, under Ex.A4, dated 04.12.1963, having traced the title to the extent of 1.25 acres. The plaintiffs have cleverly added another 10 cents in the previous suit stating that second and third suit schedule each consists of 5 cents are Natham land and that they were gifted orally in the year 1930 by Thiru Lazar @ Savarimuthu Nadar and Pitchamuthu Nadar to St. Thomas Church, Vembar. The plaint plan in the previous suit makes it very clear that the plaintiffs restricted their claim up to 16 feet pathway stated to be leading to the Church constructed within the extent of 1.15 acres. The southern part of the properties never claimed by the plaintiffs. 12. In Paragraph No. 6 of the earlier plaint in O.S. No. 55 of 1988, the specific case of the plaintiffs that South of the 16 feet pathway running east to west to the Church, there is lands belonging to Hindu Community, which is now being enjoyed by the defendants belonging to the Hindu Community. So, in the previous suit, it is the specific pleading of the plaintiffs to the effect that they never claim right whatsoever south of 16 feet pathway shown in the schedule. In the above pleadings in paragraph No. 6, it is the categorical admission of the plaintiffs that southern side of the property absolutely belonging to Hindu community. Having included 1.15 acres in the main extent, the plaintiffs have cleverly sought for declaration only in respect of 10 cents north of the 16 feet pathway shown in the plaint. In the above pleadings in paragraph No. 6, it is the categorical admission of the plaintiffs that southern side of the property absolutely belonging to Hindu community. Having included 1.15 acres in the main extent, the plaintiffs have cleverly sought for declaration only in respect of 10 cents north of the 16 feet pathway shown in the plaint. Now, the present suit has been filed for declaration in respect of 6th and 7th items of suit property on the ground that the properties were encroached by the Hindu community. 13. The Commissioner's Report filed in the previous suit which is also marked as Ex.B12 in the present suit. The Commissioner's Report indicated that the pathway has been newly created only to create the access to the Church and in the south side, Hindu Temples are available. Admittedly, no objections whatsoever filed for the Commissioner's Report. From the pleadings of the plaintiffs in the earlier suit in paragraph No. 6, the plan attached to the plaint and the Commissioner's Report, the plaintiffs specific case that they restricted their claim with specific boundaries in respect of 1.25 acres. Now, without giving any boundaries, only the settlement survey number has been shown as suit properties and they cleverly sought the relief of declaration in respect of item Nos. 6 and 7, wherein, admittedly the temples were put up and available even at the stage of earlier suit and Commissioner's Report has also indicated the same. 14. Paragraph No. 12 of the Commissioner's Report clearly indicated that the Pillayar temple and Muniyasamy temple are very much available at the relevant point of time. Besides, the plaint plan of the plaintiffs in the previous suit is also clearly describe the Muniyasamy temple and Pillayar Temple on the southern side of the suit property in O.S. No. 55 of 1988. Therefore, the contention that the plaintiffs that they were aware of the sub division only in the year 2014 is highly improbable and cannot be countenanced. 15. It is relevant to note that this Court in the second appeal in S.A. No. 277 of 1993, records findings in respect of 10 cents shown as third schedule in the previous suit. This Court interfered with the finding of the trial Court and the first appellate Court and even possession has not been proved. 15. It is relevant to note that this Court in the second appeal in S.A. No. 277 of 1993, records findings in respect of 10 cents shown as third schedule in the previous suit. This Court interfered with the finding of the trial Court and the first appellate Court and even possession has not been proved. It is also specifically recorded by this Court in paragraph-12 that the plaintiffs have been purposely vague in describing the property and they have purposely refrained from giving the survey number of the property. Ex.A1 is also subject matter in the previous suit. It is also a main document relied by them. This Court has also recorded a specific finding that the plaintiffs have admitted in the evidence that they do not know the extent of the property belonging to the Pillayar temple and Badrakaliamman temple and that he does not know the extent belonging to the Hindu Community. Further, it is the specific finding recorded by this Court in the second appeal that the plaintiffs admitted that property lying to the south of the suit property belongs to the Hindu Community and this Court has recorded its finding in paragraph no. 15 of the judgment that the alleged pathway is also form part of the land belonging to the Hindu Community and recorded that the plaintiffs have purposely omitted to give the survey number of the suit property. In paragraph No. 18 of the judgment also specific finding has been recorded to the effect that the property lying to the south of the suit property belongs to the temple and in paragraph no. 19 also this Court held that the defendants have better title in the sense that Patta has been granted in the name of the temple and held that the plaintiffs have not only failed to prove the title but also in respect of possession of 10 cents viz. 3rd schedule properties. Though there was no specific issue with regard to title of 1.15 acres, the entire discussion with regard to the title of the third schedule property in the previous suit, the Court has decided the right of the defendants in the present suit in respect of the southern portion of the property. 3rd schedule properties. Though there was no specific issue with regard to title of 1.15 acres, the entire discussion with regard to the title of the third schedule property in the previous suit, the Court has decided the right of the defendants in the present suit in respect of the southern portion of the property. It is not the case of the plaintiffs in the previous suit that they are claiming right over the southern portion, where the temples are very much available. 16. It is curious to note that in the previous suit, as discussed above in paragraph No. 6 of previous plaint, it is specifically stated that the south of the third schedule property belonging to the Hindu Community. Now, the present suit has been filed seeking declaration in respect of the property situated in south side viz. 6th and 7th item and in this suit, the plaintiffs have cleverly omitted to give any boundaries. It is clearly indicates that the suit is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Having failed in establishing the title not only in respect of 10 cents of alleged oral gift, but also the title claimed under Ex.A1 and also having failed in claiming relief in respect of southern portion, the present suit has been instituted as if they are not aware of the existence of the temple and any survey proceedings. 17. One of the issues framed in the earlier suit is whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration and injunction. Though the relief was couched in such a manner as if it relates to only second and third schedule properties in the previous suit, the entire issue relates to tracing of title of the plaintiffs on the basis of Ex.A1, dated 06.01.1880. This Court in the second appeal not only gone to the issue with regard to the second and third items alone, but also categorically recorded a finding as referred above the southern portion where temples constructed is in the possession of the Hindu Community. 18. It is also relevant to note that in the previous suit, the boundaries have been given for all the three schedules, even for the entire 1.25 acres. 18. It is also relevant to note that in the previous suit, the boundaries have been given for all the three schedules, even for the entire 1.25 acres. The north boundaries shown as Periyasamypuram Road, east 3 feet pathway and south Amman Kovil and 16 feet pathway and west Susai Nadar land and in respect of third schedule properties, specifically shown as 16 feet pathway and Ammankovil. The boundaries pleaded in the previous suit and the finding recorded by this Court in the second appeal clearly indicate the south of the properties absolutely belonging to the defendants viz. the Hindu Community. In the present suit, the boundaries have not been shown in the plaint schedule property. Whereas, the survey number which was classified in the year 1958 shown as a suit property. But, it is relevant to note that 6th and 7th items of the property actually lies on the south of the property. The right in respect of the south part is already decided in the previous suit. 19. The Second Appeal judgment in S.A. No. 277 of 1993, this Court has specifically recorded a finding that one of the southern boundary, shown as 16 feet also belongs to Hindu Community. This Court, in the second appeal has specifically recorded that even 16 feet pathway belongs to Hindu community. Such being the position, now, by clever drafting, showing ignorance of the settlement effected in the year 1958, the declaration sought in respect of 6th and 7th items the temples which are admittedly situated in the southern side of the property, in respect of which, the plaintiffs never made any claim in the previous suit. In fact, as discussed earlier, in paragraph No. 6 of the earlier pleadings, they are clearly pleaded that the southern portion is under the control of the defendants only and they restricted their title only in respect of the other part including other 10 cents and they claimed declaration in respect of the first schedule property 1.25 acres. When the right in respect of those properties already decided by the Court on the basis of the evidence already adduced by the parties. Now, the same subject matter of the property cannot be in a different suit in a different style as if the suit is only for declaration to the entire extent. The suit is nothing, but pre-litigation of the earlier lis. Now, the same subject matter of the property cannot be in a different suit in a different style as if the suit is only for declaration to the entire extent. The suit is nothing, but pre-litigation of the earlier lis. Such suit is allowed to continue, it is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 20. This Court, in the second appeal has clearly found out the rights of the defendants in southern side and recorded a specific finding that the matter has reached the finality. It is admitted by both sides that the Special Leave Petition filed by the plaintiffs also dismissed. The rights of the parties substantially decided in the earlier suit. 21. This Court in the case of Kuzhanthaiappa Gounder vs. Nachimuthu, 2015 (1) CTC 623 , has held that, in cases when issue raised was an integral part of earlier suit, subsequent suit is barred by constructive res-judicata and when bar is direct, subsequent suit is barred by Principles of res-judicata. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mommamed Khan (dead) through Legal Representatives vs. Ibrahim Khan and Another, (2018) 14 SCC 495 has held that, when the matter is directly and substantially in issue in the earlier suit, subsequent suit barred by Principles of res-judicata, the plea taken in earlier proceedings and the subsequent proceedings are not relevant. 23. In a Constitutional Bench, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a judgment in Direct Recruit Class-II Engg. Officers' Association vs. State of Maharashtra, 1990 (2) SCC 715 has held in paragraph No. 35 that an adjudication is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined but as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have had decided as incidental to or essentially connected with subject matter of the litigation and every matter coming into the legitimate purview of the original action both in respect of the matters of claim and defence and held that the principle of constructive res-judicata underlying explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is also applicable to writ case. 24. 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagabhushana vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2011 (3) SCC 408 , has held that adjudication of competent Court is final and conclusive not only with regard to actual litigation but also with regard to all incidental or connected litigation arising out thereof. 25. The previous suit has been filed not only in respect of 10 cents said to have been gifted orally in favour of the Church by the third parties, including the above 10 cents, the title sought to be declared in respect of 1.25 acres, whereas, the present suit is filed only in respect of 1.15 acres. Now, the declaration sought only in respect of the southern portion of the property i.e. item Nos. 6 and 7, in respect of which, already a categorical finding has been recorded and it reached its finality. 26. Such being the position, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the properties in two suits are different and the relief is also different, cannot be countenanced. The trial Court has in fact found that the parties in the earlier suit and the properties set out in the earlier suit are one and the same. This Court, in addition has found that what the plaintiffs now try to establish in respect of 12 cents in the southern portion, in respect of which, already a finding is recorded by the competent Court that the above property is in the hands of the defendants viz. the Hindu Community. Such being the position, the contention of the learned counsel is only academic and futile exercise to maintain the suit. Though there was no specific issue in respect of the entire extent namely 1.25 acres in the previous suit but the dispute between the parties is only in respect of the pathway and adjoining the property which was substantially decided in the earlier suit. Now, without giving any boundaries, the plaintiffs want to take advantage under the premise of seeking declaration in respect of the property viz. item Nos. 6 and 7 which were already dealt with in favour of the defendants viz. the Hindu Community. 27. Now, without giving any boundaries, the plaintiffs want to take advantage under the premise of seeking declaration in respect of the property viz. item Nos. 6 and 7 which were already dealt with in favour of the defendants viz. the Hindu Community. 27. Such being the position, this Court is of the view that the suit is nothing, but re-litigation of the entire issues and a clear abuse of process of law and such suits should be thrown out at the threshold. In fact, the issue was framed as a preliminary issue at the direction of this Court. The trial Court has taken into consideration all the evidences and particularly all the documents filed by both sides and recorded a categorical finding that the property in the previous suit and the present suit is one and the same and the suit is barred by principles of res-judicata and also plaintiffs are estopped from claiming any right on the southern side inviting the categorical admission in earlier suit that southern side belonging to Hindu Community. 28. As discussed earlier, this Court has also found that now the plaintiffs try to establish the right indirectly. When they failed to get it achieved in the earlier suit, but tried to achieve it indirectly, they cannot be allowed to seek indirect way to achieve things in their favour. Such attitude is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, this Court holds that the suit is not only barred by principles of res-judicata, but also barred by principles of re-litigation and abuse of process of law and also by principles of estoppel. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed with costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.