HARMUKH Vs. KANHAIYALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 11. 6. 1954 upholding the decree of the trial court whereby the plaintiff's suit for ejectment of the defendant as trespasser was dismissed.

(2.) WE have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. The only point urged before us by the appellant is that the finding given in the proceedings under the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance did not operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit and as such the lower courts were wrong in applying the principle of resjudicata in the present case. On behalf of the respondent reliance has been placed on a Division Bench decision of the Board reported in 1954 R. L. W. (Revenue Supplement) page 31 (Bechan Singh vs. Panna) wherein it was held that the decision under the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit. WE find ourselves in agreement with the views expressed therein. In the present case the respondents brought a claim for reinstatement under sec. 7 of the Ordinance against the appellant and was successful therein on the finding that he was a tenant of the land in dispute and was dispossessed wrongfully within three months prior to the presentation of the application. The plaintiff who Was the opposite party in those proceedings subsequently filed this with the allegation that the defendant is a trespasser on the land in dispute. Obviously he cannot be allowed to re-agitate this question as it had been decided by a competent court in a previous proceeding between the same parties.