JUDGMENT : ASHOK S. KINAGI, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Ron in R.A. No. 47/2004. 2. The facts of the case are that the suit properties are agricultural lands situated at Ron. The properties shown at Item No. (a) and (b) are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants. The suit properties shown at Item No. (c) and (d) are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant No. 3. That one Panchappa Wali was the original propositus. He had a wife by name Solabavva and three sons and one daughter. The original propositus died in the year 1986 leaving behind his wife, three sons and a daughter. Plaintiff is the daughter of Panchappa and defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are the sons of Panchappa. Defendant No. 2 is the daughter-in-law of Panchappa, i.e. wife of Basavaraj who is the son of Panchappa. After the death of propositus Panchappa there was a notional partition in the family and which is referred as M.E. No. 12310 including the deceased Solabavva and as such after the death of Sovabavva, the suit properties 1(a) and 1(b) are in joint wahiwat and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendants pertaining to the said Solabavva and after her death there was no partition since 1986 even till today in the suit properties 1(a) and 1(b) by metes and bounds. The plaintiff is having her 1/4th share in the suit properties along with the defendants who are having their 1/4th share in them. The suit properties 1(c) and 1(d) lands are in joint possession of plaintiff and defendant No. 3. There is no partition by metes and bounds in the said 1(c) and 1(d) suit properties between plaintiff and defendant No. 3. The plaintiff requested the defendants to effect partition in the suit properties, but the defendants have refused to effect a partition. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file a suit for partition and separate possession. 3. The defendants appeared and filed written statement admitting the relationship of the parties but denied that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the parties to the suit and they are in joint owners and in joint possession of their properties to the suit. 3. The defendants appeared and filed written statement admitting the relationship of the parties but denied that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the parties to the suit and they are in joint owners and in joint possession of their properties to the suit. It is further denied that plaintiff and defendants are the members of the Hindu joint family. It is further contended that deceased Solabavva had filed O.S. No. 7/1977 for partition and possession of the suit properties and residential house as well. In the said suit, defendant No. 1 alone contested the suit. The rest of the defendants admitted the suit to be decreed. After evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit. Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to 3/10th share. Defendant No. 3 and plaintiff therein and defendant No. 3 in this suit were entitled to 1/10th share each in the suit properties. The total extent of all the suit lands being 18 acres 28 guntas, the plaintiff was entitled to only 1/20th of this extent, i.e. to an area, less than one acre. After the death of Solabavva, the plaintiff is entitled to a further 1/4th share in Solabavva’s share of 3/10th share in the suit lands, i.e. to 1/20 + 3/10 x 1/4 = 1+6/20 = 1/8th of the suit properties, i.e. to a little more than 2 acres in total. After decreeing the suit O.S. No. 7/1977 a final partition by metes and bounds which is given effect to at M.E. No. 12310, the plaintiff has got equal ½ share in the suit properties, viz. in R.S. No. 762/1A measuring 6 acres and 11 guntas and R.S. No. 762/1B measuring 2 acres 2 guntas, i.e. to 4 acres 6½ guntas. The said mutation has become final and binding on the parties to the suit. Hence, there is no cause of action to file a suit. 4. Defendant No. 3 filed additional written statement contending that legal heirs of deceased Basavaraj, i.e. husband of defendant No. 2 are not made as parties to the suit. Hence, the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and suit is not maintainable and judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 7/1977 is binding on all the parties to the suit. It is further contended that the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit. 5. Hence, the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and suit is not maintainable and judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 7/1977 is binding on all the parties to the suit. It is further contended that the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit. 5. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed following issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit properties are the joint family properties of the Hindu joint family consisting the plaintiff and defendants? (ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that she has got 1/4th share in the suit properties? (iii) Whether the defendants 2 and 3 prove that as per the decree passed by this court in O.S. No. 7/1977 the plaintiff is already in actual possession of her legal share in the suit properties as alleged? (iv) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit properties? (vi) Whether the defendants are entitled for compensatory costs? (vii) What decree or order? 6. Plaintiff in support of her case examined two witnesses as PWs. 1 and 2 and got marked ExsP1 to P10. The defendants examined DW-1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D3. 7. The trial Court after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence held that plaintiffs have proved that the suit properties are the joint family properties of Hindu joint family consisting of plaintiffs and defendants. It is further held that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have failed to prove that the plaintiff is already in actual possession of her legal share in the suit properties and consequently, decreed the suit of the plaintiff granting 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. The defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court preferred R.A. No. 47/2004 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Ron. The first appellate Court has framed following points for consideration: (i) Whether the appellant/defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have shown that the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 before the court below is hit by the principles of res-judicata? (ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the court below is illegal and hence calls for interference by this court? (iii) What order? 8. The first appellate Court has held that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have shown that the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 before the court below is hit by the principles of res-judicata? (ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the court below is illegal and hence calls for interference by this court? (iii) What order? 8. The first appellate Court has held that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have shown that suit filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court is hit by the principles of res-judicata and consequently, held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is illegal and consequently allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 9. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court filed this appeal. 10. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the first appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that the present suit for partition and separate possession is not maintainable in view of the decree passed in O.S. No. 7/77 where a decree for partition had been passed where the specific stand of the plaintiff was that though there was a decree for partition earlier which was not acted upon.” 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondents is absent. 12. The parties are not disputing the relationship. It is not in dispute that suit properties are ancestral joint family properties of parties to the suit. It is also not in dispute that mother of the plaintiffs had filed O.S. No. 7/1977 for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. Parties in the earlier suit and the parties in the present suit are one and the same. Already a civil Court gave a finding that the parties are entitled for a share in the suit properties, i.e. right of parties has been decided in the earlier suit. 13. The defendants have taken a specific contention in the written statement that already a suit for partition filed by the mother of the plaintiff has been decreed and share has been allotted and the present plaintiff was also a party in the earlier suit, the judgment and decree passed in the earlier suit, i.e. O.S. No. 7/1977 is binding on the plaintiff and other defendants. The parties to the suit in O.S. No. 7/1977 have not filed final decree proceedings. Without filing final decree proceedings, the present suit is filed for partition and separate possession. Though no limitation is prescribed for filing F.D.P. even now the plaintiff can file final decree proceedings on the basis of preliminary decree passed in O.S. No. 7/1977. 14. As discussed above, the subject matter of the suit properties involved in the present suit was the subject matter of O.S. No. 7/1977 and the parties in the present suit were also parties in O.S. No. 7/1977 and a decree was passed. The said finding was not challenged by either of the parties. The right and shares of both the parties have already been decided in O.S. No. 7/1977. Hence, the plaintiff cannot maintain the second suit for partition and separate possession without filing a final decree proceeding. On the basis of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 7/1997, the mutation has already been effected. 15. Section 11 of CPC deals with the principles of res-judicata, which reads thus: “11. Res-Judicata - 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 are any 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.” 16. In view Section 11 of CPC, the present suit is hit by the principles of res-judicata. The first appellate Court after considering the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 7/1977 has rightly held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is hit by the principles of res-judicata and further observed that, as there is no limitation is prescribed for filing a final decree proceedings, the parties can enforce the decree passed in O.S. No. 7/1977 and consequently, dismissed the appeal. Needless to say that dismissal of appeal will not preclude the plaintiff from initiating F.D.P. proceedings on the basis of preliminary decree passed in O.S. No. 7/1977. 17. Needless to say that dismissal of appeal will not preclude the plaintiff from initiating F.D.P. proceedings on the basis of preliminary decree passed in O.S. No. 7/1977. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I hold the substantial question of law affirmative, i.e. against the plaintiff and consequently, the appeal filed by the plaintiff is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court.