JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J. :- This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff (here-after referred to as the appellant) against the judgment and decree dated 11.5.2001 passed by the learned District Judge. Solan whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.7.1999 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge had been upheld. 2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that the appellant instituted a suit of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from causing interference in the land comprising khata Khatauni No. 156/316. khasra No. 673. measuring 2373 square yards, situate at Mauza Lower Bazar. Solan (here-after referred to as the suit land). The case of the appellant, as made out in the plaint, is that on his application to the concerned Compensation Officer, he was held entitled to get the ownership rights of the suit land under the provisions of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act and a Patta was issued in his favour on payment of the requisite amount of compensation. The mutation Ex.P-4 was also accordingly attested in favour of the appellant. The respondent/defendant (here-after referred to as the respondent), however got Mutation No.607 attested in his favour on 30.12.1990 in connivance with the revenue officials and at the back of the appellant. The appellant apprehended that on the strength of the said mutation, he might be forcibly dispossessed from the suit land by the respondent. It has further been averred that the mutation had been wrongly attested on the basis of the judgment dated 1.10.1986 passed by this Court wherein the suit land was not the subject matter of the controversy and the said judgment of this Court is illegal, wrong and inoperative against the right, title and interests of the appellant and he is not bound by the said judgment as the same had been passed after the conferment of the ownership rights over the appellant by the Compensation Officer. Hence the suit. 3. The respondent No.l contested the suit. Hence the suit. 3. The respondent No.l contested the suit. In his written statement he raised preliminary objections that the suit was not maintainable by virtue of the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 and Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (hereafter referred to as the Code), principle of stopped and waiver, that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction and was barred by limitation and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. On merits, it has been averred that the appellant was never a tenant over the suit land and no relationship of tenant and landlord ever existed between the appellant and the respondent. The mutation in favour of respondent No. 1 had rightly been attested on the basis of the judgment dated 1.10.1986 passed by this Court which has become final and is binding on the parties. The perform respondent defendant Shankar Dass also filed a separate written statement who denied the claim of the appellant as made out in the plaint and claimed that the suit land is jointly owned and possessed by him and the appellant. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land by operation of law or in the alternative by adverse possession? OPP. 2. Whether defendants are interfering in the possession? OPP. 3. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether suit is barred by Order 2 and. Rule 2 and Section 11 C.P.C. ? OPD 5. Whether suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 7. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 9. Relief. 5. Vide judgment dated 28.7.1999 the trial Court decided issues No.l and 2 against the appellant and issues No.3 and 8 were decided in favour of the respondent and issue No.4 was partly decided in favour of the respondent and the remaining issues were decided against the respondent. As a result, the suit was dismissed. The appellant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the Court of the learned District Judge. Solan who by the impugned judgment and decree, dismissed the appeal. As a result, the suit was dismissed. The appellant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the Court of the learned District Judge. Solan who by the impugned judgment and decree, dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal which has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether both the Ld. lower Courts are adopting the correct approach in not considering/appreciating the order of Ld. Compensation Officer. Solan, who had granted the suit land in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff in exercising the powers vested upon him under H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act and on the basis of which mutation No. 174 dated 15.12.1976 (Ex.P-4) was attested? 2. Whether both the Ld. Courts below are adopting the correct approach by applying the principle of Res-judicata -Section 11. Order 2 Rule 2 where as the cause of action and reliefs in both of the cases are quite different? 3. Whether a matter in respect of which no relief is claimed can operate as Res-judicata in the subsequent suit even if the decree is passed by the competent Court and what is the effect of that judgment and decree on the case of appellant/plaintiff?" 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. Substantial Question No. I 7. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order passed by the Compensation Officer conferring the right, title and interest of the land owner upon the appellant in the suit land which included land khasra No.22 min. Measuring 16 biswas mutation Ex.P-4 was attested, on 15.12.1976. It is also not disputed that the earlier suit between the parties i.e. Civil Court No. 42/1 of 1969"was decided by the learned Senior Sub Judge on 30.10.1969 that is prior to the passing of the aforesaid order by the Compensation Officer and by the said judgment whereby Shiv Dun. the plaintiff therein and respondent-defendant herein, was held to be the owner in possession of the aforesaid 16 biswas of land. The first appeal against the said judgment and decree of the learned Senior Sub Judge was dismissed by the learned District Judge vide his judgment dated 18.11.1976 and the Second Appeal was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated October 1. 1986. rendered in Regular Second Appeal No. 20 of 1977. The first appeal against the said judgment and decree of the learned Senior Sub Judge was dismissed by the learned District Judge vide his judgment dated 18.11.1976 and the Second Appeal was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated October 1. 1986. rendered in Regular Second Appeal No. 20 of 1977. Admittedly, the judgment and decree of this Court was not challenged by the present appellant though he was a party in the earlier litigation and was a perform respondent in the said Regular Second Appeal. Thus, the decree passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge holding respondent defendant No. 1 as the owner in possession of the land measuring 16 Biswas, became final between the parties and pursuant to the decree as affirmed by this Court mutation Ex.P-6 was entered and attested in favour of respondent defendant No. 1 showing him to be the owner in possession of the land then shown as khasra No. 673/1 measuring 597 square meters on 30.11.1990. The civil Court having held in its judgment dated 30.10.1969. that the aforesaid part of the suit land i.e. khasra No. 673/1 and earlier khasra No. 22/1 measuring 16 bisvos was not a part and parcel of the tenancy and was under the cultivation of the owner, the Compensation Officer was not competent to ignore the findings, judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court. The findings of the Civil Court that the appellant was not the tenant of the aforesaid 16 biswas of land have, therefore, been rightly taken into account by the j Courts below which were binding even on the Compensation Officer. Therefore, the order of the Compensation Officer which was not even produced in evidence and conseqential mutation Ex.P-4 have rightly been rejected by the Courts below as evidence of conferment of title in the land khasra No.673/1 (old No.22 min measuring 16 biswas) in favour of the appellant. Substantial Question Nos. 2 and 3 8. Since both these questions are inter connected and inter dependent, therefore, are taken up together. 9. It may be pointed out at the very outset that the appellant had not been non suited by virtue of the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code, therefore, the question whether the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 have been rightly applied in the case or not does not arise. 9. It may be pointed out at the very outset that the appellant had not been non suited by virtue of the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code, therefore, the question whether the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 have been rightly applied in the case or not does not arise. The contention that the principle of resjudicata was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case is simply unsustainable. 10. It was contended that the cause of action and reliefs in the earlier suit and the present suit are quite different and since relief was not claimed in the earlier suit in respect of the present controversy, therefore, principle of resjudicata should not have been applied to non suit the appellant. 11. It clearly emerges from the judgment Ex.DA and the decree a sheet Ex.DB that the appellant-plaintiff, respondent-defendant No.l and perform respondents defendants 2 to 6 in this appeal and the suit out of which this appeal arises, were parties to the earlier suit. As is clear from the judgment Ex.DA. the earlier suit i.e. Suit No. 42/1 of 1969 was instituted by Shiv Dutt. respondent No.l herein for declaration that he was the owner in possession of the land comprised in khasra No.22 min measuring 16 biswas. khasra No. 22 min measuring 2 bighas 8 biswas and khasra No. 101 min measuring 17 bighas 16 biswas situate in village Solan Gaon. Teh. Solan. Out of the aforesaid land, the suit land comprising khasra Nos. 22 min and 22 min measuring 3 bighas 4 biswas now bears khasra No. 673 and khasra No. 22 min measuring 16 biswas has no been denoted as khasra No. 673/1 measuring 597 Square Meters vide Mutation Ex.P-6. The suit was contested by the defendants therein including the present appellant on the pica that they were in possession of the land subject matter of the earlier suit as tenants and Shiv Dutt. respondent No. 1 herein and plaintiff in the earlier suit was out of possession. Thus, one of the material question in issue in the earlier suit was "whether the appellant and others were tenants of the entire land hereinabove or they were not tenants over the land comprising khasra No. 22 min measuring 16 biswas (now khasra No. 673/1 measuring 597 sq. Thus, one of the material question in issue in the earlier suit was "whether the appellant and others were tenants of the entire land hereinabove or they were not tenants over the land comprising khasra No. 22 min measuring 16 biswas (now khasra No. 673/1 measuring 597 sq. meters) which was claimed by respondent Shiv Dutt to be in his possession as owner thereof. The findings of the trial Court and the first appellate Court that the land khasra No.22 measuring 16 biswas was not a part and parcel of tenancy but was under the cultivating possession of respondent Shiv Dutt as owner, were upheld and maintained by this Court vide its judgment Ex.DA. the material portion whereof reads as follows: ".....The other parcel of land measuring 16 biswas is comprised of khasra No.22 min. In order to prove his cultivating possession over this land, the plaintiff besides oral evidence had relied upon khasra Girdwaris from the year 1954 right up to 1966 found at Exhibits PE. PD and PB. These documents prove that this area of 16 biswas had throughout been in possession of the plaintiff. There is no satisfactory rebuttal evidence to the contrary. The findings of the courts below thus having been based on cogent evidence do not call for any interference." 12. The subject matter of the subsequent suit instituted by the appellant out of which the present appeal arises is the land comprising khasra No. 673. measuring 3-4 biswas (2373 Sq. meters) which includes land khasra No. 673/1. measuring 597 square meters which was earlier khasra No. 20 min measuring 16 biswas and formed a part of the subject matter of the earlier suit. The appellant claims to be the owner in possession of the suit land in its entirety including the 597 square meters of aforesaid land on the ground that he being a tenant had acquired ownership rights therein and mutation Ex.P-4 was rightly attested in his favour pursuant to the orders passed by the Compensation Officer and the judgment and decree earlier passed by the High Court in RSA No.20/77 arising .out of the Civil Suit No.42/1 of 1969 are illegal, wrong and inoperative against his rights and. therefore, he is not bound by the said judgment and decree. therefore, he is not bound by the said judgment and decree. The basic question, thus, in the earlier suit as well as in the present suit was "whether the appellant was a tenant of the land khasra No.673/1 measuring 597 square meters (earlier khasra No.20 min. measuring 16 biswas) along with other land or not?" The Civil Court in the earlier suit, by its judgment dated 30.10.1969 held that the aforesaid portion of the suit land was not under tenancy but was under the cultivating possession of respondent No. 1 as owner thereof and these findings were confirmed in the first appeal and Second Appeal, to which the opulent was a party. 13. Section 11 of the Code reads as follows: "Res judicata. - No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title. In a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised and has been heard and finally decided by such Court." Explanation I - The expression "former suit" shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto. Explanation II - For the purpose of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court. Explanation I11 - The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted expressly or impliedly. by the other. Explanation IV - Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially issue in such suit. Explanation V - Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused. Explanation V - Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused. Explanation VI - Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating. Explanation – VII The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. Explanation - VIII. An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised." 14. In view of the above provisions of Section 11 C.P.C. for application of the doctrine of res judicata in a subsequent suit, the following conditions must be satisfied:- (a) The matter must be directly and substantially in issue in the formerly decided suit and the subsequent suit. (b) Parties in both the suits must be the same or the parties under whom they or any of them claim: (c) Parties in both the suits must be litigating under the same title: (d) The Court must be competent to try the suits: and (e) The matter must have been heard and finally decided in the former suit. 15. In the case in hand, as already seen, the present parties were party in the earlier suit. The material question involved in the earlier suit and in the present suit is also "whether land bearing old Khasra No. 20 min. 15. In the case in hand, as already seen, the present parties were party in the earlier suit. The material question involved in the earlier suit and in the present suit is also "whether land bearing old Khasra No. 20 min. measuring 16 biswas was a parcel of tenancy held by a tenant i.e. the appellant or it was and is under the personal cultivation of the owner i.e. respondent No.l" This question was decided by a competent Court of law and its decision was affirmed by the appellate Courts and it was held that the said land was not under tenancy but was in the personal cultivation of the owner i.e. respondent No. 1. Thus, all the requisites to attract the bar of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code, are satisfied and the Courts below havs thus rightly held that the suit instituted by the appellant was barred by the principles of res judicata. 16. In view of the above discussion and conclusions, the impugned judgment and decree do not call for any interference by this Court. 17. As a result, this appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear there own costs. -