GOVINDPRASAD Vs. KAMALPASHA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on the question of admission.

(2.) THE instant appeal by appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of C.P.C. is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 17/03/2008 passed by Additional District Judge Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) in Civil Appeal No. 16 -A/2007; confirming the judgment and decree dated 27/2/2007 passed by First Civil Judge, Class -II, Basoda in Civil Suit No. 2 -A/2006. By the aforesaid judgment, the plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(3.) DEFENDANT filed written statement denying the plaint allegations. It is inter alia contended that defendant in fact is in possession of the suit land by virtue of sale deed dated 25/7/1987 executed by Barelal and Shriram and possession was delivered to him. Besides, it is also submitted that Barelal and Shriram have deliberately not made party in the instant suit. That apart, the defendant has also contended that earlier suit No. 135 -A/1994 was filed by the plaintiff on the same set of facts and in fact and in effect for the same relief against the defendant which has been dismissed on 16/7/2002 and in fact second appeal No. 116/2003 pending before the High Court has also been decided vide judgment dated 25/9/2006. Earlier suit No. 135 -A/1994 filed by plaintiff was seeking relief that in the light of agreement between them, the sale deed executed in favour of defendant -Kamaal Pasha be declared null and void. The present suit filed by the plaintiff is against defendant Kamaal Pasha only. Barelal and Shriram have not been made party. In the instant suit, plaintiff had claimed title by adverse possession. Therefore, present suit is hit by principles of res judicata therefore, liable to be dismissed.