JUDGMENT : TARA VITASTA GANJU, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed seeking to challenge an order dated 12.03.2018 in O.S.No.42/2017 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Davanagere [“Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff praying for declaration and possession of the suit schedule properties was dismissed on a preliminary issue. 2. The brief facts are that a suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking a declaration that the appellant/plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule properties and for the consequential relief of possession as well as for mesne profits in respect thereof. 2.1. The suit schedule properties as described in the plaint are set out below: “SCHEDULE-B ITEM No.1 Agricultural land bearing Re.Sy.No. 64/1 measuring8 acres 7 guntas including kharab of 6 guntas, assessed at Rs. 6.22 paisa of Mittalakatte village in Harihar Taluk which is bounded as follows: East : Land of Vageeshalah and Road; West : Lands of Kambinur Jayanna and Parasappa; North : Land of Sathyanarayanappa; South : Land of M.G. Vamadevappa. SCHEDULE-B ITEM No.2 Agricultural land bearing Re.Sy.No. 94/4 measuring 2 acres 3 guntas Including kharab of 3 guntas, assessed at Rs. 1.38 paisa and Re.Sy.No. 94/5 measuring 21 guntas including kharab of 1 gunta assessed at Rs. 0.34 paisa of Salakatte village in Harihar Taluk which is bounded as follows: East : Road; West : Land of Ballari Thippanna; North: Land of Smt. Indramma W/o Ballari Hanumanthappa; South: Land of Hallura Gowdru.” SCHEDULE-C House property bearing old door No. 437/1, current municipal door No. 437/1, 2 and 3 constructed on the site measuring 45 feet + 33 feet /2 X 44 feet +38 eet/2 (45+33)/2 x (44+38)/2 feet situated in 2nd Main, 2nd Cross, 5th Wird, 7th Division, K.B. Extension, Davanagere city which is bounded as follows: East : House of Jayadev Hiremath; West : House of Kariganur Bhogendrappa; North : Road South : Conservancy; SCHEDULE-D House property bearing old door No. 561/38, current municipal door No. 561/38 (1), (2), (3) and (4) constructed on the site measuring 30 feet X 17 Vs feet + 20 feet /2 (30 x 17.6+20)/2 feet situated in, 4th Cross, K.T. Jambanna Compound, K.B. Extension, Davanagere city which is bounded as follows: East : House of Subhadramma; West : Road; North : Conservancy: South : House of Mahadevamma in occupation of Raju, Shobha and Shanmukha.” 2.2. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule properties by virtue of a Will dated 15.12.1999 executed by one Mahadevamma and that respondents/defendants do not have any title to the suit schedule properties. 2.3. The suit was contested by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 stating that there was a previous suit filed by these defendants being O.S.No.147/2014 [hereinafter called the “Earlier Suit”] in which, the learned Trial Court had decided the suit giving the findings in respect of another Will dated 30.05.2000 executed by the said Mahadevamma. Thus, it was contended that since the appellant/plaintiff did not challenge the findings of the learned Trial Court in the Earlier Suit despite having knowledge of that suit, the findings in the Earlier Suit have attained finality and cannot be challenged in the present suit. 2.4. On examination of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues: ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties by virtue of register Will dt: 15 02-1999? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that after the death of Honnappa. Mahadevamma got the khata of the agricultural lands situated in Harihar Taluk mutated not only to her name but also to the names of the plaintiff and Nagaraj? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule properties? 4. Whether the defendant No.2 and 3 prove that Late. Mahadevamma executed register will dt, 30-05-2000? 5. Whether the defendant No.22 proves that the suit is barred by limitation? 6. Whether the defendant No.1 to 4 prove that the suit is hit by Sec.11 of CPC? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief of declaration and possession? 8. What order or decree? 3. As discussed above, the learned Trial Court relying on Section 11 and Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”], found that the suit schedule properties were part of the properties in the Earlier Suit and the plaintiff in the present suit was arrayed as defendant No.13 in the Earlier Suit. 3. As discussed above, the learned Trial Court relying on Section 11 and Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”], found that the suit schedule properties were part of the properties in the Earlier Suit and the plaintiff in the present suit was arrayed as defendant No.13 in the Earlier Suit. It was further held that the rights of the parties qua the suit schedule properties have already been decided in the Earlier Suit and that the if the Appellant/Plaintiff has not exerted any right in the Earlier Suit over the suit schedule properties or about the Will dated 15.02.1999, he is estopped from again agitating the same in the present suit. In addition, it was held that he had not disclosed the details of the Earlier Suit and was guilty of suppression. Hence, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the suit as barred by the provisions of Section 11 of CPC. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contends that appellant/plaintiff had rights in the suit schedule properties and that the learned Trial Court could not have decided the suit only on the basis of a preliminary issue since the parties were required to lead evidence for a final decision. 5. Learned counsel for the defendants/respondent Nos.1 to 4, on the other hand, has submitted that all the issues that were raised in the present suit have already been adjudicated upon and thus, the suit was rightly dismissed by the learned Trial Court. 6. The question that arises for determination in the present appeal is, whether the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit as being barred by the provisions of res-judicata. 7. It is not been disputed that the appellant/plaintiff was defendant No.13 in the Earlier Suit. 8. This Court has examined the plaint filed in the present suit as well as the Earlier Suit. It is also not disputed by the appellant/plaintiff that the suit schedule properties in the present suit are part of the Schedule B to Schedule D in the Earlier Suit. The suit schedule property at Item 1 corresponds with the property at Schedule C of the Earlier Suit; while Item 2 corresponds with Schedule D and properties at Item 3 and 4 correspond with the items in Schedule B of the Earlier Suit. The suit schedule property at Item 1 corresponds with the property at Schedule C of the Earlier Suit; while Item 2 corresponds with Schedule D and properties at Item 3 and 4 correspond with the items in Schedule B of the Earlier Suit. The suit schedule properties in the Earlier Suit as well as in the present suit are set out below: 9. The prayers in both suits were also for declaration (partition) and delivery of possession of the suit schedule properties as can be seen below: 10. Concededly, the subject matter of the present suit as well as the subject matter of the Earlier Suit is the suit schedule properties. The appellant/plaintiff was a party in the Earlier Suit and contested the Earlier Suit. The appellant/plaintiff, however, failed to set out any assertion averment in his defence of the ownership qua the suit schedule properties or that he was entitled to the suit schedule properties by virtue of a Will dated 15.02.1999 executed by Mahadevamma. 10.1. This Court has examined the written statement as well as the evidence by way of affidavit of the appellant/plaintiff which was filed in the earlier suit. The affidavit sets out the relationship between the parties including that said Mahadevamma who is stated to be the senior aunt of the appellant/plaintiff. It was further stated that after the death of Mahadevamma, the appellant/plaintiff came to know of a Will in respect of the suit schedule property bearing No.548, 5 th Ward, 7 th Division, K.B.Layout, Davanagere City. The relevant paragraph of the affidavit is set out below. “13. After the death of Honnappa Mahadevamma succeeded to the house property also bearing No. 548. After the death of Honnappa, khata of this property was changed to her name. After the death of Mahadevamma I came to know that she has executed the Will in respect of the house bearing door No: 548 bequeathing the same to me. This fact was intimated to me by Muddappa and he handed over the original Will to me. After the execution of the Will, Mahadevamma was alive for about 5 years. After the death of Mahadevamma, I became the owner for this property. I got the khata of this property changed to my name. I am paving the tax in respect of this property also. After the execution of the Will, Mahadevamma was alive for about 5 years. After the death of Mahadevamma, I became the owner for this property. I got the khata of this property changed to my name. I am paving the tax in respect of this property also. Except myself no other person or persons are having any right, title and interest in this property. So also Mallikarjuna and Ashok. They are having the knowledge of the same. In spite of having the knowledge that they have no right, title, interest and share in this property, they have filed this false suit to give trouble to me willfully and intentionally.” 11. It is also not disputed that the Will dated 30.05.2000 which was the subject matter of the Earlier Suit was not challenged by the appellant/plaintiff in the Earlier Suit. In addition, the learned Trial Court also found that the challenge by the appellant/plaintiff in the Earlier Suit qua another Will dated 23.08.1995 [Ex.D-48] was disclosed, but the Will dated 15.02.1999 was not disclosed by the appellant/plaintiff in the Earlier Suit. 12. At this stage, it is apposite to set out Section 11 of CPC below as follows: “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 or 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.” 12.1. Section 11 of CPC provides that where a suit has been raised on a claim or of a party, and heard and finally decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, no court shall try a subsequent suit where such issues have already been decided. Thus, if the lis between the parties has attained finality and an issue has been decided against a party, he would be estopped by the doctrine of res-judicata from raising the issue again in a fresh suit. 13. There is however, no bar for filing an appeal to challenge the finding in the Earlier Suit. Thus, if the lis between the parties has attained finality and an issue has been decided against a party, he would be estopped by the doctrine of res-judicata from raising the issue again in a fresh suit. 13. There is however, no bar for filing an appeal to challenge the finding in the Earlier Suit. The appellant/plaintiff however did not challenge the finding in the Earlier Suit, instead he chose to wait for a decision in the Earlier Suit and thereafter filed the present suit. Indisputedly, the subject matter of the Earlier Suit and the present suit is the same. Both the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant claim rights over the suit schedule property, but by two different Will of the same Smt. Mahadevamma. The earlier suit decided the rights of the parties in respect of the suit schedule properties. The lis qua the suit schedule properties has attained finality. 14. In view of the aforegoing, this Court finds no infirmity in the Impugned Order and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.