MOHINI Vs. HEM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute between the parties falls within the domain of Section 11 of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (in short 'the Act'). Where as, the appellants are the landlords, the respondent is the tenant. The tenant moved an application under Section 11 of the Act for conferment of proprietary rights in respect of the tenancy land, which is in dispute in the present appeal, to the Compensation Officer (SDM) Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., who vide order dated 07.02.2007 granted the prayer of the tenant and ordered conferment of proprietary rights in respect of the said land in his favour. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the landlords took the matter in appeal to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, H.P., unsuccessfully. It is how the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, dated 29.05.2010, is under challenge in the present regular second appeal. In essence, the appellants are challenging concurrent findings of fact rendered by both the courts below.

(2.) The appellants have formulated the following substantial questions of law in this appeal:

(3.) Whether the principle of resjudicata is applicable in the present case in view of the earlier decision dated 29.01.1998 as well as dated 18.8.1967?