It is the contention that there is no dispute, as rightly recorded by the trial court, that the suit schedule property is one and the same, and that both the plaintiffs in this case and in the other case derive their right and title to the property from the common person. Here, apart from seeking a declaration and injunction, if that is the case, it would fall within a straight bracket, whether it is hit by the principles of res judicata or not. But in this case, the plaintiff is seeking another relief, that is, that the judgment and decree is not binding on him. It is his case that, the suit has been filed fraudulently. During the lifetime of the plaintiff in the present suit, the plaintiffs in the earlier suit had no right to file the suit, and the plaintiff has raised independent contentions. Even if the contentions of the petitioner are held to be correct, only the part of the suit relating to the declaration can be appreciated, and the relief with regard to declaration and injunction can be considered. But there is another prayer which has to be decided by the trial court after a full-fledged trial with regard to the binding nature of the earlier suit. In those circumstances, having appreciated the contentions, the trial court has held that, it is a mixed question of fact and law, and therefore evidence has to be
