JUDGMENT : A. Misra, J. - The unsuccessful Plaintiffs are the Appellants. The suit was filed to recover Rs. 5, 583. 81 from Defendant No. 1 representing the amount of compensation received by the latter from the State in respect of acquisition of 5, 10 acres of bhogra lands described in Schedule A of the plaint. 2. Admittedly, Defendant No. 1 was the Gountia of village Bhulka in which the A Schedule lands are situated. According to Plaintiffs, they and Defendant No. 2 are descendants of a common ancestor. Having acquired the A Schedule lands under a perpetual lease from the then Gountia of the Village prior to the Russel settlement in 1868, Plaintiffs' family were recorded as sikimi tenants and were in possession and enjoyment of the same. The State acquired the village including the A Schedule lands on 25-6-1949 under the provisions of the Orissa Act XVIII of 1948 in connection with construction of the Hirakud Dam. The compensation for this acquisition having been offered to Defendant No. 1 Plaintiffs filed objections before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming that they were entitled to the amount to the amount of compensation payable for the A Schedule lands. On receipt of this objection, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter for decision of the Arbitrator under the provisions of the Act before whom both Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 appeared. While the matter was pending before the Arbitrator, it is alleged that Defendant No. 1 induced Plaintiffs to refrain from appearing and pressing their claim before the Arbitrator promising that he alone would fight it out, and ultimtely pay their share of compensation to them after disposal of the proceeding. Being thus induced, they absented themselves in the arbitration proceeding. Subsequently, they learned that Defendant No. 1 obtained the award solely in his favour and received the compensation amount for the bhogra lands including the A Schedule lands, but refused to pay their share when demanded. On these allegations, it is stated that Defendant No. 1, taking advantage of the illiteracy of Plaintiffs, has perpetuated a fraud against them and taken away the money which they are legitimately entitled to. Hence, Plaintiffs filed the suit to recover the amount from Defendant No. 1. As Defendant No. 2 did not join them, he was arrayed as a proforma Defendant. 3. Hence, Plaintiffs filed the suit to recover the amount from Defendant No. 1. As Defendant No. 2 did not join them, he was arrayed as a proforma Defendant. 3. Defendant No. 1 resisted the claim alleging that he was the Rs. 15/- annas co-sharer Gountia of the mouza which includes the A Schedule lands, that neither Plaintiffs nor their ancestor ever got any settlement of the lands by way of perpetual lease or otherwise from him or his ancestors and that they never possessed any title thereto. According to him, the ancestor of Plaintiffs worked as Khamari under his father and in lieu of his remuneration was allowed to enjoy the usufruct from the suit lands so long he rendered service. He denies to have made any fraudulent representation or induced Plaintiff to remain absent from the arbitration proceeding and press their claim. So also, he denies to have made any promise to pay them any amount out of the compensation after disposal of the arbitration proceeding. It is further stated that Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 as Karta of their respective families preferred their claims before the Arbitrator on 4-5-53, but took no further steps either before him or in appeal before the High Court. Ultimately, it was decided in the said proceeding that Plaintiffs have no title to the A Schedule lands and were not entitled to any portion of compensation. The maintainability of the suit is also questioned on the ground that the order in the arbitration proceeding which was subsequently confirmed in appeal by the High Court is final and conclusive. 4. The Court below dismissed the suit on the following findings: (1) Plaintiffs have failed to prove that they had acquired any interest in the A Schedule lands entitling them to claim any portion of the compensation amount; (2) Plaintiffs have completely faced to prove the alleged fraud and misrepresentation by Defendant No. 1 whereby they had been induced not to attend the proceedings before the Arbitrator; (3) the decision in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 1953 which was confirmed in appeal operates as res judicata against the present claim of Plaintiffs and; (4) in view of the provisions contained in Orissa Act XVIII of 1948, the order passed in the arbitration proceeding is final, so far as the rights of the parties are concerned, and the present suit is not maintain able. 5. 5. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: (1) whether the present suit is barred on general principles of res judicata, in view of the decision in the arbitration proceeding; (2) whether without setting aside the decision in the arbitration proceeding on the ground of fraud or otherwise, the claim will be maintainable (3) whether Plaintiffs possess any title to the A Schedule lands and (4) whether Plaintiffs have succeeded in proving the fraud alleged by them. 6. Point Nos. 1 and 2. - It is common ground that the A Schedule lands appertain to the gounti village of Defendant, No. 1 which was acquired by the State under Act XVIII of 19,18; that Plaintiffs filed an objection before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming a portion of the compensation on the ground that they possessed interest in the A Schedule lands and that their objections were referred to the Arbitrator under the provisions of the Act before whom both parties appeared at the inception and ultimately the Arbitrator found that Plaintiffs did not possess any interest, and as such were not entitled to any portion of the compensation. Defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal to the High Court as provided under the Act against the quantum of compensation which was also decided. Orissa Act XVIII of 1948 provides a self-contained procedure for determination of compensation to be awarded in respect of lands Acquired thereunder as well as the person to whom the same is to be paid by apportionment or otherwise. Section 7 provides for determination of the amount of compensation by agreement. In case where no such agreement is reached and objections are raised u/s 7(1)(b), the Land Acquisition Officer is to refer the same to an Arbitrator. Section 7(2) empowers the Arbitrator to determine the compensation and in awarding the same apportion it between such persons, if any, as may appear to be entitled thereto. Under Sub-section (3), a right of appeal is 'given to the person aggrieved by the award of the Arbitrator either in respect of the compensation or apportionment and the decision under these provisions is declared to be final. Thus, in short, the provisions of the Act not only provide for determination of the quantum of compensation, but also for determination of right of different persons to receive the whole or any portion of the amount awarded. Ext. Thus, in short, the provisions of the Act not only provide for determination of the quantum of compensation, but also for determination of right of different persons to receive the whole or any portion of the amount awarded. Ext. 1 and A show that the claim made, by Plaintiffs before the Arbitrator to receive a portion of the compensation on the ground that they possessed an interest in the A Schedule lands was negatived and it was found that they were not entitled to it. Plaintiffs did not prefer any appeal against the decision of the Arbitrator. On these undisputed facts, the question for consideration is whether the claim of Plaintiffs in the suit is barred by general principles of res judicata. It is well settled that the general principles of res judicata can be successfully advanced on the basis of judgments of Courts and tribunals of special or exclusive jurisdiction like revenue Courts, Courts under the Land Acquisition Act, etc., In the decision reported in Raj Lakshmi Dasi and Others Vs. Banamali Sen and Others, it was held: The binding force of a judgment delivered under the Land Acquisition Act depends on general principles of law ..... If it were not binding there would be no end to litigation. It was further observed that when a plea of res judicata is founded on general principles of law, all that is necessary to establish is that the Court that heard and decided the former case was a Court of competent jurisdiction. A pie It of res judicata on general principles can be successfully taken in respect of judgments of Courts of exclusive jurisdiction like revenue Courts, Land Acquisition Courts, Arbitration Courts, etc., These Courts are not entitled to try a regular suit and they only exercise special jurisdiction conferred on them by the Statute. Similarly, in the decision reported in 1959 Andhra Law Times, 156 it was held: Where therefore a dispute as to the title to receive the compensation had been referred' to the' Court under the Land Acquisition Act, a decree thereon not appealed from, renders the question of title res judicata in a suit between the parties to the dispute. But in order to operate as res judicata or estoppel by record, it has to be shown that the question of title was necessarily and substantially involved in the Land Acquisition proceedings. 7. But in order to operate as res judicata or estoppel by record, it has to be shown that the question of title was necessarily and substantially involved in the Land Acquisition proceedings. 7. It is not disputed before us that Plaintiffs laid their claim before the Arbitrator constituted under the Act to decide such disputes on the ground that they possessed an interest in the A Schedule lands, and 0.8 such, were entitled to a portion of the compensation awarded. Necessarily, the title claimed by Plaintiffs in the A Schedule lands was directly and substantially in issue in the said arbitration proceeding, because entitlement to A a portion of the compensation depended on their having title to the properties acquired. Under the provisions, no appeal having been filed against the decision of the Arbitrator, it has become final and on general principles, therefore, as has been found by the Court below it operates as res judicata against the Plaintiffs' claim now. This position has not been seriously contested by learned Counsel for Appellants who, however, argued that Plaintiffs mainly based their claim on the ground of fraud. Admittedly, Plaintiffs have not sought or prayed for setting aside of the award in the Arbitration Case No. 1 of 1953 which subsequently merged in the judgment of the High Court in appeal on the ground of fraud or otherwise. Therefore, the present claim of Plaintiffs to recover the compensation amount for the A Schedule lands from Defendant No. 1 is not maintainable without getting the award Bet aside, and even otherwise, the decision in the arbitration case on general principles of law operates as res judicata and debars Plaintiffs from claiming any compensation for the A Schedule lands of the ground that they possessed title thereto which has been negatived in the arbitration proceeding. On this ground alone, the appeal is bound to fail. 8. Point No. 3 Admittedly, the A Schedule lands constituted part of the gounti village belonging to Defendant No. 1's family. Plaintiff claim to have obtained a perpetual lease from the ancestor of Defendant No. 1. No written document has been produced even though at one stage Plaintiff No. 5 in his evidence stated that they had taken a written lease. Ext. Plaintiff claim to have obtained a perpetual lease from the ancestor of Defendant No. 1. No written document has been produced even though at one stage Plaintiff No. 5 in his evidence stated that they had taken a written lease. Ext. 2 to 2/0 at best prove that Plaintiffs and their ancestor held some bhogra lands under the Gountia time to time, but the extent mentioned therein is not uniform. The identity of the A Schedule lands with the lands held by their ancestor from time to time under the Gountia has not been established. Considering these circumstances, the Court below has found that Plaintiffs have failed to prove acquisition of permanent tenancy rights from the Gountia and we find no valid reason to differ from the said finding. 9. Point No. 4 Coming to the case of fraud alleged, all that has been stated by Plaintiffs in the plaint is that Defendant No. 1 persuaded them not to appear before the Arbitrator promising to pay them their portion of the compensation after disposal of the proceeding. This part of the case is based entirely on the oral testimony of P.ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5. The evidence is not consistent and the conduct of Plaintiffs and the circumstances do not lend support to this allegation. If really any such inducement was offered, it is Dot explained why Plaintiffs did not ascertain about the result of the compensation amount to Defendant No. 1 after disposal of the appeal filed by him in the High Court, in spite of the fact that the Arbitrator decided against their having any interest in the A Schedule lands. Therefore, we agree with the Court below that Plaintiffs have failed to prove that by any fraudulent misrepresentation they refrained from contesting their claim before the Arbitrator. 10. Thus, considered from any point of view, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs. S. Acharya, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed