JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahr dated February 17, 1975. 2. The suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted in respect of plot No. 92/7 containing area of 1 Bishwa 15 bishwansi. The allegations of the plaint in so far as relevant are that the land comprised in the said plot vested into Gaon Sabha impleaded as defendant No. 10 filed a resolution passed on January 18, 1965. The land was allotted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff thus claims to be entitled to possession over this land. It is also pointed that he instituted an earlier suit No. 467 of 1966 in respect of this same land against Banshi defendant No. 9 (since deceased). The suit was decreed by the trial court but in civil appeal No. 103 of 1968 filed by Banshi, the decree passed by the trial court was reversed. According to the plaintiffs the land involved in controversy therein was plot No. 97/7 but this was not admitted by Banshi therein which was wrongful and hence the decree passed by the appellate court in that earlier suit is vitiated. The relief sought by the plaintiff is declaration that plot No. 92/7 belongs to him and that the decree dated February 19, 1969 in C.A. No. 103 of 1968 passed by the Civil Judge, Bulandshahr is liable to be cancelled. The possession has also been claimed by the plaintiff over the said plot. The suit was resisted by and on behalf of the defendant No. 9 contending that the decree passed in C.A. 103 of 1968 dated February 19, 1969 operates as res judicata and the plaintiff cannot claim to have right, title or interest in the said land on the basis of allotment dated 18.1.1965 from the Gaon Sabha. 3. The trial court dismissed the suit on August 14, 1973 being of the view that the earlier decree operated as res judicata. The plaintiff preferred C.A. No. 363 of 1973 which has been allowed in part by the Additional Civil Judge on 17.2.1975. It was observed that the earlier decree does' not operate as res judicata because there has subsequently been survey got made by the court Amin and hence there is change in the place relating to the suit. The plaintiff preferred C.A. No. 363 of 1973 which has been allowed in part by the Additional Civil Judge on 17.2.1975. It was observed that the earlier decree does' not operate as res judicata because there has subsequently been survey got made by the court Amin and hence there is change in the place relating to the suit. The plaintiff has been held to have title and the right to possession of the land comprised in plot No. 92/7. In the result, the decree passed by the lower appellate court in favour of the plaintiff is for possession though the relief relating to cancellation of the decree has been rejected on the ground that there is no fraud or anything of any kind showing to exist as that passing of the earlier decree is concerned. Aggrieved the legal representatives of the defendant No. 9 have preferred this appeal. The other defendants No. 1 to 8 were impleaded only proforma in this case. 4. The only question raised in the appeal is whether the decree passed in C.A. 103 of 1968 dated February 19, 1969 operates as res judicata. Controversy does not exist on the issue that dispute related to this same land alleged to be comprised in plot No. 92/7. The plaintiff' Buddha was also the plaintiff in that earlier suit and the defendant was Banshi deceased (defendant No. 9). The suit was decreed by the trial court but the decree was reversed by the appellate court. Certified copy of the decree of the appellate court is on the record. It indicates that the dispute raised was with respect to the title to plot No. 92/7. The dismissal of the suit in to points that the plaintiff-appellant therein was not found entitled to any part of the disputed land. The question relating to the identity of the land also seems to have been involved in that earlier case because it was not admitted that the land was comprised in plot No. 92/7 and it appears that survey had not been got done at that stage. In the suit giving rise to this present appeal, the survey was got made through the court-Amin and on this basis it has been pointed that the land is comprised in plot No. 92/7. In the suit giving rise to this present appeal, the survey was got made through the court-Amin and on this basis it has been pointed that the land is comprised in plot No. 92/7. The question is whether the decree ceases to operate as res judicata on account of the fact that survey has now been got done. It is worthy of note that in the plaint as appearing from paragraphs 9 and 10 particularly there is no indication of any other ground for the said decree being held ineffective. The only ground averred is that the defendant concerned viz. Banshi wrongly maintained in that earlier case that the land was not comprised in plot No. 92/7. 5. For the plaintiff-respondents reliance before the lower appellate court was placed on the decision reported in Akbar Khan v. Board of Revenue etc., 1971 R.D. 382. The facts of that case were however, distinct, in that case the earlier suit was instituted for ejectment and damages under section 209 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 in respect of certain plots. The suit was decreed by the trial court. The Additional Commissioner set aside the judgment and order identifiable on the spot, the suit for ejectment could not be decreed. He did not deal with any other issue. The appeal before the Board of Revenue was summarily dismissed on the same ground, namely, that the particular area over which the plaintiff wanted the defendants to be ejected was not identifiable. A subsequent suit was filed thereafter under section 209 and simultaneously an application for demarcation of the land by the court was also made. The demarcation was done. It was held upon these facts that in the face of the changed circumstances, namely, the identification of the land in dispute having been got done subsequently, the earlier decision did operate as res judicata so as to preclude the plaintiffs from claiming the relief of ejectment and damages. Reliance was placed by Mr. R.L. Gulati, J. on the earlier decisions in Savitri Den v. Achhelal, 1943 R.D. 268 and the decision of the Board of revenue in Girdhari v. Kamle, 1969 R.D. 276 in which it was held that the identification of the land can be made even in execution of a decree for ejectment and it is not necessary that the proceedings for demarcation of the land should precede the suit. The significant fact is that there was no adjudication in the earlier suit therein with regard to the title of the parties. Contrary to this in the instant case there has been adjudication made also of the title of the parties in Civil appeal No. 103 of 1968. A perusal of the grounds Nos. 2, 4 and 9 particularly of the decree passed by the appellate court therein will show clearly that there had been adjudication made of the title in this case and it was held that Banshi (now impleaded as defendant no. 9) held the land as his Abadi and that the land did not belong to the plaintiff in view of this adjudication regarding the title in the earlier suit it cannot be maintained that decision was based exclusively on dispute relating to the identity. 6. In view of the above, the decree in C.A. 103/68 operate clearly as res judicata in my view and therefore, the appeal succeeds. 7. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of the bovver appellate court are set aside. The suit is dismissed and the decree passed by the trial court is restored. Costs of this court on parties.