The matter came up before this Court by way of Civil Appeal No.
In the said suit finding was returned by the trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to prove the ownership and possession and, thus, the suit for injunction was dismissed.
Respondents preferred an appeal thereagainst.
The suit was dismissed holdings that he was number entitled to hold or manage the Gaddi in question.
It dealt with in details as to how the causes of actions in both the suits were the same.
The said suits were filed for grant of permanent injunction.
We, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court and restore the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court.
Whether the suit lies in the present form?
The appeal is heard.
It was furthermore held In that companynection it is found that the appellant is the Chela of Lahar Dass and that Lahar Dass and Mahant Nitaya Nand were Gurbhai Chelas of the said Mani Ram .
Thus their testimony was never disbelieved as such.
Relying on or on the basis of the said observation made by this Court, the second round of litigation began.
The learned trial judge, having regard to the pleadings of the parties inter alia, framed the following issues Whether the plaintiff is the Chela of Lahar Dass and Pota Chela of Mahant Mani Ram?
The matters relating to management of another Gaddi situated at another place, i.e., Makhora, however, is number in dispute.
A second appeal was preferred thereagainst before the High Court which was registered as Regular Second Appeal No.800 of 1973.
The High Court allowed the purported register of the Bhaik to be produced as additional evidence.
It entered into the merit of the matter and held as under The oral evidence produced by the plaintiff to prove this fact in the Trial Court, was discussed by the lower Appellate Court as well, but as observed earlier, the lower Appellate Court did number believe those witnesses because all of them had stated that such a writing was made in the register when the plaintiff was appointed as Mahant and that writing was attested by some of the members of the Bhaik, yet the same was number produced in the Trial Court.
An appeal preferred thereagainst, being Civil Appeal No.
Appellant has claimed its entitlement to the management of the said Gaddi under a Will purported to have been executed by Mahant Mani Ram Swami.
In the said suit a decree for possession of the properties mentioned in paragraph 5 of the plaint companysisting of 15 items of properties was prayed for.
However, the finding of the trial companyrt on issue No.4 was reversed.
Another suit was filed by Mahant Mani Ram Sadhu Dadu Panthi which was marked as Suit No.
The main companytroversy between the parties, therefore, was which party was entitled to manage the Gaddi at Kalanaur of the said Trust.
If so, to what effect?
In the fresh suit, the first respondent also impleaded Gaddi Dadu Dawara Kalanur through himself as the second plaintiff.
Such finding was affirmed in appeal as well.
Appellants were arrayed as defendants.
An additional issue was framed, after the defendant Nos.
3 4 were impleaded as parties in the suit, which reads 5 A.Whether defendant No.3 or defendant No.4 was the Chela of the late Mahant Mani Ram and is number the present Mahant of the institution?
The principal issues were decided against the first respondent.
An appeal was preferred thereagainst by the appellants.
295/2 of 1964.
The first appellate companyrt, however, by its judgment and order dated 27th November, 2005 reversed the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt holding that neither the principles of Res Judicta number Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure were applicable in view of the observations made by this Court in the aforementioned order of this Court dated 2nd February, 1987.
46 of 1967.
This judgment will number companye in the way of the plaintiff respondent filing a suit for possession, if he is so advised.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
7600 of 1983 and by a judgment and order dated 2nd February, 1987 a Division Bench of this Court allowed the said appeal stating Special leave granted.
Disputes and differences between the parties having arisen as regards succession and management of the Gaddi, first respondent filed a suit in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Rohtak .
299 of 1987 arising out of SLP No.
The learned trial judge by his judgment and order dated 11th February, 2003 opined that the said suit was barred by the principles of res judiciata, the issues arising therein being directly and substantially in issue between the parties in the previous suit as well.
It was registered as Suit No.
