ORDER : Vijaykumar A. Patil, J. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "(a) To quash/set aside the order dated 05.06.2017 passed by the Court of the I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District on I.A.Nos.12 & 14 filed by the petitioners i.e. Annexure-A and to allow I.A.No.12 filed by the petitioners under Sections 11 & 12 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as prayed for and to consequently dismiss the suit in O.S.No.416/1998 filed by the respondents in the court of the I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. (b) To award costs and grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and expedient in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Sri.Siddharth Suman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that respondents filed suit in O.S.No.102/1991 against the petitioners for partition and separate possession which came to be dismissed. The respondents filed regular first appeal which also came to be dismissed holding that the parties have already partitioned the property long back and they are in their respective share. Suppressing the same, O.S.No.416/1998 is filed by the respondents seeking the relief of declaration to declare that the respondents/plaintiffs are the absolute and lawful owners of the suit schedule properties in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by virtue of the oral partition held in about 1960. It is submitted that the issues involved in O.S.No.102/1991 and the issues in the present suit are one and the same pertaining to the same subject matter of the properties. It is further submitted that in the earlier suit respondents/plaintiffs have shown the larger extent of the properties and now in the schedule, exactly half of the same properties is shown as a suit schedule properties. It is also submitted that the petitioners filed an application in OS.No.416/1998 under Sections 11 and 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') seeking to dismiss the suit on the ground that the later suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs is not maintainable as it is hit by the doctrine of res judicata. However, the trial Court without assigning any proper reasons has come to conclusion that the relief sought in both suits are different and rejected the application. However, the trial Court without assigning any proper reasons has come to conclusion that the relief sought in both suits are different and rejected the application. The finding of the trial Court in the earlier suit in O.S.No.102/1991 on issue No.2 is very clear that the respondents/plaintiffs are not entitled to either partition or for half share in the plaint schedule property. Hence, now he cannot file another suit seeking declaration for the title over the half portion of the properties which is hit by the doctrine of res judicata. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.G.S.Patil, learned counsel for respondents supports the order of the trial Court and submits that in earlier suit in O.S.No.102/1991 the respondents have taken stand that there is no oral partition as claimed and the suit came to be dismissed. The present suit i.e., O.S.No.416/1998 is filed as there was no partition by metes and bounds. It is a clear finding that respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to the half share of the property. Hence, the present suit is filed and maintainable. It is further submitted that the issues involved in both the suits are different. Hence, the later suit being a suit for declaration is required to be tried on its merits and at this stage, the respondents/plaintiffs cannot be ousted on the ground of res judicata. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides. 5. Sri.T.Venkatappa - respondent/plaintiff had filed O.S.No.102/1991 seeking relief of partition and separate possession over the suit schedule properties. The trial Court in the said suit framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to half share in the plaint schedule property? 3. Whether the court fee paid is sufficient? 4. What order or decree?" The aforesaid issues have been answered by the trial Court in negative, against Sri.T.Venkatappa - respondent/plaintiff. 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to half share in the plaint schedule property? 3. Whether the court fee paid is sufficient? 4. What order or decree?" The aforesaid issues have been answered by the trial Court in negative, against Sri.T.Venkatappa - respondent/plaintiff. The trial Court at Paragraph No.16 has recorded the finding that PW.1 in his evidence at paragraph No.5 of the cross-examination discloses that the plaintiff has categorically admitted the oral partition and stated that the said partition was effected between him, his father and his brother and based on the said admission, the trial Court recorded the finding that the oral partition and the severance of joint family status has been effected. The trial Court at paragraph No.18 while answering issue No.2 has come to a definite conclusion that partition between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the said suit had already taken place and the plaintiff had taken his legitimate share in the plaint schedule properties. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to either partition or for half share in the plaint schedule properties as claimed by him and the trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit vide judgment and decree dated 18.09.1996. The said judgment and decree was challenged by the respondents in RFA.No.41/1997 before this Court. This Court vide judgment dated 19.06.1997 dismissed the said appeal by confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.102/1991. 6. Respondents filed O.S.No.416/1998 against the petitioners contending that the suit filed by them in O.S.No.102/1991 was dismissed and thereafter, the appeal was filed and as per the said finding in the appeal, the plaintiff was entitled for half share. Hence, the suit for declaration is filed showing the cause of action arose on 19.06.1997, the date of dismissal of the appeal. The suit schedule properties clearly indicate that respondents/plaintiffs exactly divided half of the properties shown in O.S.No.102/1991 and shown as suit schedule properties in the present suit. The trial Court in the aforesaid suit has framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that right, title and interest over the suit schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful and actual possession of the suit schedule property? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property? 4. Whether the plaintiff proves that right, title and interest over the suit schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful and actual possession of the suit schedule property? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property? 4. Whether the defendants prove that Court fee paid is insufficient? 5. What Orders or Decree?" 7. The petitioners filed an application in O.S.No.416/1998 for dismissal of the suit on the ground that it is hit by the doctrine of res judicata. The trial Court considering the material on record has come to conclusion that the earlier suit filed was for the partition and separate possession and now, the suit is filed for declaration of ownership of the plaintiffs. Hence, the subject matter of the suit and the nature of the suit are different and rejected the application. In my consideration, the trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the application. 8. The finding recorded by the trial Court in O.S.No.102/1991 at paragraph Nos.16 to 18 clearly indicates that the trial Court has come to a definite conclusion with regard to the partition and share of the respondent/plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The said suit has attained finality by dismissal of the appeal filed by respondent/plaintiff before this Court. Later, showing the same properties, respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.416/1998 seeking for declaration that they are the absolute owner of half of the suit schedule properties which is claimed to be half of the suit schedule properties of O.S.102/1991. The issues framed in both the suits and the subject matter between the parties are being one and the same which has been already adjudicated and held against respondents/plaintiffs. In that view of the matter, respondents/plaintiffs cannot maintain the second suit i.e., O.S.No.416/1998. The issues involved in the earlier suit in O.S.No.102/1991 are directly and substantially issues in the later suit in O.S.No.416/1998. Hence, under Section 11 of CPC, the later suit filed by respondents is not maintainable. Accordingly, liable to be dismissed. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. The issues involved in the earlier suit in O.S.No.102/1991 are directly and substantially issues in the later suit in O.S.No.416/1998. Hence, under Section 11 of CPC, the later suit filed by respondents is not maintainable. Accordingly, liable to be dismissed. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 05.06.2017 passed on IA.Nos.12 and 14 filed by the petitioners under Section 11 and 12 r/w Section 151 of CPC and under Section 151 of CPC respectively is hereby set aside. iii) Consequently, IA.No.12 and 14 filed under Section 11 and 12 r/w Section 151 of CPC and under Section 151 of CPC respectively are allowed. Consequently, suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs in O.S.No.416/1998 is dismissed.