JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J. (Oral) - The appellants are the plaintiffs. They have failed in the two courts below in obtaining a decree for declaration and junction to the extent that that are owners in possession of the land in dispute detailed in the plaint. 2. The defendants- respondents while resisting that suit asserted their own possession over the land in dispute as owners in pursuance of judgment and decree dated 28.2.1984 passed in civil suit No. 122 of 1972/58 of 1980. 3. The two Courts below, on the basis of evidence coming on record, have held the defendants- respondents to be in possession of the land in dispute as owners thereof. 4. It may be stated that admittedly there was a previous litigation between the parties being civil suit No. 122 of 1972/58 of 1980. The said suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the present defendants-respondents and others. The said suit involved the land in dispute as well as other parcels of land which form part of the estate of one deceased Notu. The said suit was partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff and they were held to be joint owners to the extent of half share alongwith S/Shri Dagi and Gambu sons of Shri Jhuli. They were accordingly granted a decree for joint possession. Insofar as the land in dispute is concerned which also formed part of the subject matter of the earlier suit the present defendants- respondents were held to be in possession thereof as non-occupancy tenants having acquired title thereto by operation of law. Admittedly, the appeal and the cross-objections preferred by the parties against the said judgment and decree dated 28.2.1984 were dismissed as time-barred. The judgment and decree dated 28.2.1984 had thus become final. 5. In view of the previous judgment and decree dated 28.2.1984, copy of which has been placed on record as Ex./PF the two courts below have rightly held the defendants-respondents to be the owners and in possession of the land in dispute. The plaintiffs by way off principle of res-judicata could not have agitated the issue which! stood finally disposed of in the previous litigation. 6. No question of law muchless a substantial question of law is involved in the present case. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed.