IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 23RD BHADRA 1932 RSA.No. 844 of 2010() --------------------- AS.28/1994 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA OS.355/1990 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR .................... APPELLANT/DEFENDANT (S): ------------------------------------------ ASANAR RAWTHER ABDUL SALAM, THOPPIL VEEDU, NADUKKUNNU MURI, PATHANAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI. HARILAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- GEEVARGHESE CHAKO, PINARUVILA, KOCHU PUTHEN VEEDU, VETTIPUZHA, PUNALUR, PATHANAPURAM. ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.S.A No.844 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of September 2010 JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the concurrent decision rendered in a suit for money. Defendant is the appellant. Three suits were filed against the appellant/defendant, two of them by the respondent as plaintiff and the other by his father as plaintiff. All the suits were jointly tried and disposed under a common judgment by the trial court, by which, two of them were decreed against the appellant and the other one, dismissed as settled. The appellant preferred two appeals against the adverse decision rendered against him in two suits under the aforesaid common judgment and those two appeals after being heard together were disposed by a common judgment by the first appellate court upholding the decree of the trial court and dismissing the appeals. The appellant, admittedly, preferred the present appeal, that alone, from one of the two appeals decided against him under the common judgment dismissing the two appeals by the first appellate court. Perusing the issues considered by the trial court and also the first appellate court, it is found that the issues involved for adjudication in all the suits were common and as such, the finding entered in one of them, if not challenged as R.S.A No.844 OF 2010 - 2 - provided by law, would operate as resjudicata in entertaining further challenge from any of the suits. Since the appellant has filed only one appeal against the two appeals dismissed under the common judgment by the first appellate court, it is needless to point out that the findings rendered for the dismissal of the other appeal on the common questions considered would debar the entertainability of this appeal in view of the applicability of the resjudicata. That being so, I find, the appeal is not entertainable, and, it is dismissed. 2. Appellant is liable to pay the 1/3rd court fee payable on the appeal as he has obtained exemption to prosecute the appeal as an indigent person. 3. A copy of the decree shall be forwarded to the District Collector concerned to enable realisation of the court fee due from the appellant. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge vdv