SARDAR HAR BHAJAN SINGH Vs. HARI BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. The appeal was ad mitted on 22-10-1984 on four substantial questions of law as follows: (1) When a suit for possession stands dismissed for default and an application under Order IX, Rule 9 also stands dis missed, whether a subsequent suit for the same relief in respect of the same property was maintainable; (2) Whether a partition deed which is not duly stamped and is not registered could be read as evidence; (3) When a question of title is decided in respect of a property in a former suit between the father of the plaintiff and others, whether in a subsequent suit a court can again decide the question of title in respect of the same property contrary to the judgment in the former suit; and (4) Whether a suit for possession on the ground of trespass is maintainable at the instance of one co- owner without impleading the other co-owner as a party. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, pressed the points of bar of sub sequent suit under Order IX, Rule 9 and of the admissibility of the partition paper.

(2.) A suit, numbered 54 of 1975, was initiated by Hari Babu (Present respondent No. 1) against Harbhajan Singh (present appellant) and others.

(3.) THE trial court received evidence and heard the parties and decided that the suit property was owned by the plaintiffs and the present suit was not barred under Order IX, Rule 9 and he decreed the suit of the plaintiff in toto on 21-3-1980.