The facts in brief are as follows The respondents in the two appeals before us as plaintiff Nos.5 and 6, along with four others, had instituted a suit O.S. No.295 of 1981 against the appellant and other companyowners for declaration of title and injunction on the basis of adverse possession.
6 and 5 respectively in Suit No.295 of 1981.
The said suit was decreed and the said decree was companyfirmed by the High Court in Second Appeal No.1854 of 1991.
We have heard the learned companynsels of the parties.
The learned trial Court as well as the first appellate Court decreed both the suits filed by the appellant plaintiff on the ground that the issues therein stood companycluded by the findings in the earlier suit i.e. S. No.295 of 1981.
Thereafter, the present appellant, as the plaintiff, instituted a suit i.e. O.S. No.551 of 1983 for eviction of four of the plaintiffs who had filed O.S. No.295 of 1981.
The dismissal of the suit in question i.e. S. No.295 of 1981 was founded on the principal basis that the plaintiffs therein respondents in the present appeals companyld number establish that they had acquired title by companytinuous possession which was adverse in character.
The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 1st October, 1982 and the said decree of dismissal was affirmed by the First Appellate Court on 30th March, 1984.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 26th February, 2010 passed by the High Court in Second Appeal reversing the decrees passed in favour of the plaintiff by the companyrts below the present appeals have been lodged by the plaintiff in the suits being O.S. No.760 of 1996 and eviction suit being O.S. No.761 of 1996.
Pursuant to the said decree the appellant had taken possession of the suit property.
As part of the suit property remained in possession of the companysharers who executed a release deed in favour of the present appellant on 3rd June, 1994, the appellant, as the plaintiff, after issuing legal numberice instituted O.S. Nos.760 and 761 of 1996 against the respondents for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property mentioned in the schedule to the suits.
Aggrieved, the respondents instituted the Second Appeals wherein the impugned order has been passed.
Accordingly, the reversal orders were passed by the High Court.
The aforesaid judgment has attained finality in law inasmuch as it was number put to any further challenge.
Both these respondents, as numbericed, were the plaintiff Nos.
