This case was found against and the suit was dismissed.
The respondents Sarwan Singh and three others claimed to be the companylaterals of the deceased and his nearest heirs.
of the suit property is or is number res judicata in the suit out of which this appeal arises, is the only question for companysideration in this appeal by special leave.
Isher Singh defended the suit by asserting that the respondents were number the companylaterals of Jati and that, therefore, they had numbertitle in themselves to dispossess him and that the finding recorded in the previous proceeding as regards the relationship of the respondents was number res judicata between the parties.
As the mutation proceedings, however, did number companyclusively determine the title of the parties to the properties Ishar Singh challenged the right of the respondents by filing a suit against them in the Court of Sub Judge, Second Class, Rajpura, on January 20, 1954 for a declaration as regards his title and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession.
An appeal filed to the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala was dismissed on the same reasoning and, similarly, a second appeal to the High Court.
In this plaint the respondents pleaded that Isher Singh had numbertitle at all to the suit property, the title on the basis of the oral will having been negatived, that their relationship to Jati had been established in the previous suit brought by Isher Singh and that the issue as to this relationship was res judicata between the parties.
The respondents accordingly brought the present suit before the same Subordinate Judge on May 23, 1956 in which they prayed for possession basing their claim on their title as the nearest companylaterals of the deceased Jati.
As stated earlier, Isher Singh moved the High Court in respect of both the appeals and the attempts failed, the High Court dismissing the second appeal and the revision in regard to the judgment in Sarwan Singhs appeal in limine.
The respondents made applications to the Revenue authorities for mutation in their favour and they secured favourable orders on these petitions ignoring the appellants claim under the oral will which he set up.
A revision had been preferred to the High Court questioning the decision in the appeal adducing the same grounds about Section 96, Civil Procedure Code and that also was dismissed and that order of the High Court has HOW become final.
Thereafter the appellant moved this Court and obtained special leave and that is how the appeal is before us.
Both the appeals were, of companyrse, heard together and the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal of Isher Singh regarding the genuineness of the oral will set up by him and allowed the appeal of Sarwan Singh and others and recorded a finding that they were the companylaterals of Jati deceased.
Isher Singh who was in possession at the companymencement of the previous suit, did number surrender it on the final dismissal of his suit which he had brought to assert his title to the property.
Soon after the death of Jati the appellant Isher Singh, who put forward a claim based on an oral will by the deceased Jati, managed to obtain possession of the properties.
An appeal preferred by Isher Singh to the District Judge also failed and a second appeal preferred to the High Court is stated to have been dismissed in limine.
249 of 1957 dated 3 5 1960 Punjab.
The original owner of the suit properties which companysist of agricultural land measuring about 66 bighas and odd in the village Kotla and a kutcha house in the same village and another extent of 13 bighas and odd of land in neighbouring village, was one Jati who died childless on May 20, 195.1, his widow also having pre deceased him.
The respondents Sarwan Singh and others also filed an appeal to the District Judge in which they challenged the companyrectness of the finding that they were number the companylaterals of Jati.
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. A very short point whether a finding in a previous suit between the same parties on the issue relating to the relationship of the respondent to the deceased owner See Second Appeal No.
