S. K. DUTTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is against a decree of affirmance, The plaintiff appellant instituted Title Suit No. 5 of 1962 for a declaration of his title in tenancy interest in respect of Kha schedule land of the plaint and also for a further declaration that the defendants had no title therein and for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession of the suit lands. The plaintiff, it appears, also instituted Money Suit No. 12 of 1958 for a money decree for Rs. 444/- being the amount of compensation for paddy on the suit land which was alleged to have been forcibly harvested by the defendants. These two suits were heard analogously and the evidence, oral and documentary, is common in both the suits. Issue No. 3 of the Money Suit is as follows:-"3. Is the plaintiff entitled to get any compensation? if so, for what amount?"the other relevant issues, being issues Nos. 5 and 6 of the Title Suit are as follows:-"5. Has the plaintiff alleged right, title and interest in respect of the suit property? 6. Is the plaintiff entitled to the declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for?" ( 2 ) THE learned Munsif answered the issues 5 and 6 of the Title Suit in the negative. He further held that as the possession continued to be with the defendant No. 1, the money suit faild. In regard to issue No. 3 of the Money suit, the learned Munsif observed that in view of his above discussion '. . . . the plaintiff never possessed the suit lands in khas and therefore he is not entitled to any compensation from defendant No. 1'. Both the suits were accordingly dismissed. ( 3 ) TWO appeals were preferred against two decrees which were based on the above common judgment and in the appeals heard analogously, the appellate court framed two points for determination which are as follows:-"1. Has the plaintiff his alleged right, title and interest in the suit lands? If so, is he entitled to the prayer for permanent injunction? 2. Is the plaintiff entitled to get any compensation? If so, for what amount?" ( 4 ) THE appellate court on point No. 1 held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit lands and he was never in khas possession thereof. If so, is he entitled to the prayer for permanent injunction? 2. Is the plaintiff entitled to get any compensation? If so, for what amount?" ( 4 ) THE appellate court on point No. 1 held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit lands and he was never in khas possession thereof. To sum up, the plaintiff could not claim his tenancy right in the suit land and he was not entitled to a declaration of such right nor could he claim injunction being out of possession. As to point No. 2, the court observed that in the light of the above findings, as the plaintiff never possessed the suit land to Khas, he is not entitled to claim compensation for Rs. 444/- or any amount. As a result, the appeals were dismissed. Against the appellate decree arising from the Money Suit, the petitioner obtained a Rule being Civil Revision Case No. 3261 of 1965 and this Rule, it appears, was discharged for default on 4. 12. 74 and that order is now final. ( 5 ) AGAINST the decision in the appeal out of the Title Suit, the plaintiff has preferred this present appeal. ( 6 ) MR. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the defendant respondent No. 1 has submitted, in effect by way of preliminary objection, that the plaintiff's present appeal is barred by resjudicata in view of the decision in Civil Revision case arising out of the Money Suit. He submitted that the decree in the Money Suit is based on the finding that the plaintiff had no tenancy interest in the land as claimed nor was he in Khas possession of it and this finding has been affirmed by this Court in the Civil Rule, though the Rule was discharge for default as already indicated. He referred to certain decisions of the Supreme Court to which I shall presently refer. ( 7 ) MR. Bankim Chandra Dutt, learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff appellant submitted that there was no finding on title in the Money Suit as the learned Munsif, while dismissing the Money Suit has simply relied on the findings arrived at in the Title Suit and similar was the position before the appellate court and in the Money Appeal. Bankim Chandra Dutt, learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff appellant submitted that there was no finding on title in the Money Suit as the learned Munsif, while dismissing the Money Suit has simply relied on the findings arrived at in the Title Suit and similar was the position before the appellate court and in the Money Appeal. There was no question or occasion for making any finding on title in the money suit by the court which could be said to be resjudicata in the present appeal. ( 8 ) WE have seen that the suits were heard analogously and the plaintiff's Money Suit was dismissed on the ground that he failed to establish his title or possession in the suit lands which was the finding arrived at in the Suits in the analogous hearing by the common judgment. In the appellate court we have seen that the points for determination were on title and possession first and in considering the respective claims the court on the materials before it came for a finding that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit lands nor was he ever in khas possession thereof and he could not claim any tenancy right in respect thereof. These findings were arrived at by the Court in both the appeals and that was the reason why both the appeals were dismissed as the court found against the plaintiff on all the relevant issues again by the common judgment. It is to be noted that this Court discharged the Rule in its revisional jurisdiction which as the Supreme Court has pointed out is only a made of exercising its general appellate jurisdiction as held in (1) Sukumar Ramchandra v. Krishnaji, AIR 1970 SC 1 and the order of the appellate court becomes merged with the order made in revision so that the appellate order stands confirmed. The Supreme Court in (2) Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kuwar, AIR 1966 SC 1332 observed:-". . . . Where the trial Court has decided two suits having common issues on the merits and there are two appeals therefrom and one of them is dismissed on some preliminary ground, like limitation or default in printing, with the result that the trial Court's decision stands confirmed, the decision of the appeal court will be res judicata and the appeal court must be deemed to have heard and finally decided the matter. In such a case the result of the decision of the appeal court is to confirm the decision of the trial Court given on merits, and if that is so the decision of the appeal court will be res judicate whatever may be the reason for the dismissal. " ( 9 ) THESE observations squarely fit in with the events that took place in this appeal and in view of the above position; it is not possible to contend that there was no res judicata. ( 10 ) MR. Dutt, learned Advocate has submitted that there is no question of inconsistent decree being passed, the prevention of which is one of the object of the principle of resjudicata. It is difficult to appreciate this contention as the dismissal of the Money Suit ultimately affirmed by the High Court was based on the finding that the plaintiff had no title or possession of the suit lands. These claims are also the basis of the prayer for decree in the title suit and if now this title suit is decreed, such decree will be wholly inconsistent with the decree in the Money Suit which is not permissible in law. ( 11 ) IN view of this position, this appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. ( 12 ) IN view of above, the petition for production of additional evidence filed in court on 28. 4. 76 is rejected. Appeal fails and dismissed.