JUDGMENT : M.R. Verma, J. 1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.8.1999, passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla, whereby appeal filed by the appellant- plaintiff (hereafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') against the judgment and decree dated 15.3.1996, passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Rohru, has been dismissed. 2. The facts leading to the presentation of this appeal, in brief, are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration that she is owner in possession of the land comprising khasra nos. 86, 88 and 89, measuring 5.3 bighas, situate in Chak Malog, Teh. Jubbal, Disttt. Shimla (hereafter referred to as 'the suit land'). Her case, as made out in the plaint, is that she purchased a portion of the suit land from one Mohantru, since deceased, in the year 1974 vide registered sale deed dated 2.2.1974. After execution of the sale deed, she occupied whole of the suit land and raised an orchard thereon. Respondents defendants 2 to 4 who were recorded as joint owners so the suit land with Mohantru did not raise any objection to the raising of the orchard by the plaintiff over the entire suit land. Ever since the occupying of the land, the plaintiff is holding out herself to be the exclusive owner in possession of whole of the suit land and her possession was open, hostile, as of right and uninterrupted and defendants 2 to 4 never asserted any other right, title or interest in the suit land after the year 1974. Later, a portion of the suit land was acquired by the Public Works Department for construction of a road. Out of the compensation assessed for the acquired land, defendant No. 1 sought to pay a portion of the compensation so assessed to defendants 2 to 4 according to their shares. However, according to the plaintiff, said defendants had lost their title because the plaintiff has acquitted title to the suit land by adverse possession, therefore, the defendants were not entitled to receive the compensation. 3. The defendants contested the suit. Defendant No. 1, defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and defendants 5 to 8 filed their separate written statements. However, according to the plaintiff, said defendants had lost their title because the plaintiff has acquitted title to the suit land by adverse possession, therefore, the defendants were not entitled to receive the compensation. 3. The defendants contested the suit. Defendant No. 1, defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and defendants 5 to 8 filed their separate written statements. Defendant No. 1, in its written statement, raised preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has no enforceable cause of action; that the plaintiff has no locus standi to institute the suit; that the suit is not within limitation; that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code, that the suit is infructuous as the compensation has been paid to the claimants; that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit has not been properly valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. On merits, relying on the entries in the revenue records, it has been claimed that plaintiff is owner of the suit land only to the extent of one and half share, compensation for which has been paid to her husband on 3.8.1986. Her claim to have acquired title over the suit land by virtue of adverse possession has been denied. 4. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4, in their written statements, raised the preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable as the sale deed dated 2.2.1974 was procured by misrepresentation and fraud whereas the vendor had died on 3rd Magh, 2029 BK. and that the suit is bad for want of proper Court fee and valuation. On merits, the sale of the suit land by Mohantru in favour of the plaintiff has been denied and breaking of the land for cultivation/laying of orchard by the plaintiff as alleged has also been denied. It is claimed that the sale had been brought about by fraud and misrepresentation and on coming to know of the illegal sale, they have instituted a suit against the plaintiff. It is, however, admitted that a part of the suit land has been acquired by the Public Works Department but the right to the suit land and the compensation had been claimed by the replying defendants. 5. It is, however, admitted that a part of the suit land has been acquired by the Public Works Department but the right to the suit land and the compensation had been claimed by the replying defendants. 5. Defendants 5 to 8, in their written statement, took the preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable in its present form as the sale deed relied on by the plaintiff was got executed and attested after one year of the death of Mohantru and that the plaintiff took over the possession of the suit land by force. On merits, the claim of the plaintiff has been denied as a whole and it has been claimed that the sale deed is fictitious having been brought about to deprive the defendants from inheriting the suit property where the apple orchard was planted by the husband of defendant No. 5 during his life time, but the replying defendants were forcibly dispossessed by the plaintiff about two years before the filing of the written statement. A criminal complaint was filed by defendant No. 1 against the plaintiff and her helpers in a Court at Rohru which was dismissed for technical reasons. The replying defendants have claimed a right of having inherited the suit property to the extent of their shares and have claimed to be the real claimants to the compensation payable for acquisition of the acquired portion of the suit land. 6. Plaintiffs filed replications wherein the grounds of defendant taken in the written statements of defendants 1, 2 to 4 and 5 to 8 have been denied and the claim as made out in the plaint, has been reaffirmed. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the part of the suit land measuring 2-11 bighas as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has become owner of the part of the suit land measuring 2-9 bighas by way of adverse possession, as alleged ? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged ? OPD (1) 4. Whether the suit is not competent without notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code as alleged ? OPD (1) 5. Whether the suit has been rendered infructuous, as alleged ? OPD (1) 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi as alleged ? Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged ? OPD (1) 4. Whether the suit is not competent without notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code as alleged ? OPD (1) 5. Whether the suit has been rendered infructuous, as alleged ? OPD (1) 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi as alleged ? OPD (1) 6A. Whether the plaintiff raised the apple orchard over the suit land, as alleged and if so, its effect ? OPP 6B. Whether the jurisdiction of the Court is barred, as alleged ? OPD (1) 7. Relief. 8. On consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court decided issue Nos. 1, 2 and 6-A against the plaintiff and remaining issues against the defendants and as a consequence of such findings, dismissed the suit. 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge, Shimla, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal. 10. This appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following Substantial Questions of Law : 1. Whether learned District Judge below has failed to exercise jurisdiction by ignoring pleadings of the parties and evidence on recored and instead of placing reliance on the judgment and decree another appeal No. 16-Section 13 of 1996 he was required to decide the appeal on merit ? 2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree as passed by the learned District Judge below is vitiated apparently on account of ignoring pleadings of the parties as well as the oral and documentary evidence on record ? 3. Whether the present appeal having arisen against judgment and decree in earlier instituted suit could not be decided on the basis of the evidence and findings in suit which was filed later in point of time ? 11. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. Substantial Question Nos. 1 to 3 : 12. Since all these questions are inter-connected, therefore, are being discussed and disposed of together. 13. 11. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. Substantial Question Nos. 1 to 3 : 12. Since all these questions are inter-connected, therefore, are being discussed and disposed of together. 13. It was contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the learned District Judge had passed the impugned judgment and decree on the basis of judgment and decree passed by him in another Civil Appeal No. 16- S/13 of 1996 by treating the findings therein as constituting res judicata regarding the controversy in this appeal which was not a course open to him and he was duty bound to look into the evidence as recorded by the trial Court in the suit out of which the appeal has arisen and thus to dispose of the appeal on its own merits. It was further contended that it was more so in view of the fact that the judgment/findings which he treated res judicata in the present case was judgment/findings rendered in a suit which was filed later in point of time than the suit out of which appeal No. 17-S/13 of 1996 in which he had rendered the impugned judgment and decree had arisen. According to the learned Counsel, because of the course adopted by the District Judge the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside. 14. The present appellant had instituted the suit out of which the present appeal arises against Shangri, Kupi, Devli, Hirmu, Asha, Usha, Lokinder and State of H.P. for declaration that she is owner in possession of the suit land. Her claim is based on a registered sale deed dated 2.2.1974 allegedly executed in her favour by one Mohantru who was a recorded joint owner of the aforesaid land. The second ground to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is that eversince the sale aforesaid she is occupying the land in suit as exclusive owner in possession and her possession is open, hostile, as of right and uninterrupted. This suit was initially instituted by the plaintiff on 6.6.1986 against the State of H.P. Shangri, Kupi and Devli but subsequently by way of amendment in the plan Hirmu, Asha, Usha and Lokinder were added as party defendants to the suit but no relief against them has been claimed. This suit was initially instituted by the plaintiff on 6.6.1986 against the State of H.P. Shangri, Kupi and Devli but subsequently by way of amendment in the plan Hirmu, Asha, Usha and Lokinder were added as party defendants to the suit but no relief against them has been claimed. The suit between the parties was contested and was finally dismissed on merits by the trial Court and appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed by the learned District Judge by the impugned judgment and decree. 15. The learned District Judge while deciding the appeal before him by the impugned judgment and decree and observed that Shangri (respondent No. 2 in this appeal) had instituted a suit for declaration that Mohantru had not executed any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff herein and for possession of the suit land. That suit was decreed by the trial Court and the plaintiff had preferred appeal No. 16-Section 13 of 1996 against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in the said suit and the said appeal was dismissed by him on the same day when the appeal disposed of by the impugned judgment and decree was also disposed of. It may be pointed out that aforesaid Shangri, Kupi, Devli, Hirmu, Asha, Usha and Lokinder were parties to the suit instituted by the present plaintiff and the Civil Suit instituted by respondent Shangri and the appeals which respectively arose out of the said suits. 16. It is clear from the observation in the judgment that the appeal No. 16-Section 13 of 1996 had been disposed of by the District Judge prior in point of time than the appeal out of which the present appeal arises. In the judgment delivered in appeal No. 16-Section 13 of 1996 the learned District Judge had held that the sale deed allegedly executed by Mohantru in favour of the plaintiff is not genuine. Against this background, the learned District Judge while disposing of the appeal by the impugned judgment held that the aforesaid findings given in appeal No. 16-Section 13 of 1996 operates as res judicata and, therefore, it was held that Mohantru did not execute any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Against this background, the learned District Judge while disposing of the appeal by the impugned judgment held that the aforesaid findings given in appeal No. 16-Section 13 of 1996 operates as res judicata and, therefore, it was held that Mohantru did not execute any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. In view of this conclusion, he did not discuss the evidence led by the parties in this case to prove their rival claims regarding ownership of the suit land. It is this course of action which is called in question by the plaintiff. 17. As already stated hereinabove, the rival claimants claiming ownership over the suit land were parties to both the suits. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties regarding ownership on the suit land the material issues framed in the suit land the material issues framed in the suit out of which Civil Appeal No. 16-Section 13 of 1996 had arisen read as follows :- 1. Whether the plaintiff and proforma defendants were to succeed the suit land left by deceased Mohantru as his legal representative, as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the sale deed dated 2.2.1974 in favour of defendant No. 1 is the result of fraud, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and proforma defendants, as alleged ? OPP 18. It may be clarified that in the above issues Shangri respondent herein has been referred to as the plaintiff, respondents Kupi, Devli, Hirmu, Usha, Asha and Lokinder the respondents herein has been referred to as proforma defendants and plaintiff herein have been referred to as defendant No. 1 as they were impleaded as such in the said suit. 19. In the suit out of which this appeal arises, the material issues read as follows :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the part of the suit land measuring 2-11 Bighas, as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has become owner of the part of the suit land measuring 2-9 Bighas by way of adverse possession, as alleged ? OPP 20. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the part of the suit land measuring 2-11 Bighas, as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has become owner of the part of the suit land measuring 2-9 Bighas by way of adverse possession, as alleged ? OPP 20. In view of the respective facts, as averred in the pleadings of the parties in the respective pleadings and the frame of the issue, it is evident that the controversy regarding ownership in both the suits was based on similar facts and claims and the question as to which one of the parties is owner of the suit land was specifically in issue in both the suits. While deciding Civil Appeal No. 16-Section 13 of 1996 arising out of the suit instituted by Shangri the District Judge on merits held that the sale deed on the basis of which the present plaintiff was claimed to be the owner in possession of the suit land was not genuine and thereby the plaintiff did not get any right, title or interest in the suit land. After having disposed of said appeal the District Judge took up the appeal out of which the present appeal arises for disposal and held the aforesaid findings as res judicata and without entering into appreciation of the evidence led by the parties in the suit out of which the appeal arose took the aforesaid findings as binding between the parties and thereby negatived the claim of the plaintiff that she is the owner of the suit land by virtue of the sale deed. 21. The aforesaid findings had been recorded by the District Judge as also by the trial Court in a suit between the parties and concerns the same subject-matter of dispute between the parties claiming under the same title and the sale deed set up by the plaintiff. Once immediately before deciding the present appeal the District Judge had rendered these findings, in my view he would have committed a grave error in not taking note of the findings recorded by him in appeal No. 16-Section 13 of 1996. Had he ignored such findings and ventured to take a contrary view on the basis of evidence led by the parties in this case he would have rendered two conflicting findings and thereby rendering the two judgments and two decrees controventory and incapable of execution. Had he ignored such findings and ventured to take a contrary view on the basis of evidence led by the parties in this case he would have rendered two conflicting findings and thereby rendering the two judgments and two decrees controventory and incapable of execution. In fact, it was a lawful and right course for him to have applied the findings of Civil Appeal No. 16-Section 13 of 1996 res judicata in the present case. It is not material as to whether which one of the two suits was instituted earlier. What was material is as to what findings of a particular fact had already been recorded and there was no option to ignore such findings and to proceed to determine the same question only on the basis of almost similar evidence as in the earlier decided appeal. 22. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the learned District Judge acted illegally and the findings holding the sale deed on the basis of which plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit land as not genuine are liable to be set aside for the reason that he had relied on the findings recorded by him in the other appeal on the same day. Be it stated that the findings recorded by the learned District Judge qua ingenuineness of the sale deed under reference in Civil Appeal No. 16-Section 13 of 1996 have been upheld even by this Court in RSA No. 409 of 1999 titled Sharda v. Shangri and others, decided on 30.7.2003 and a copy of judgment therein be placed on the file of the present appeal. 23. The learned District Judge has disbelieved the claim of the plaintiff regarding her having acquired title to a part of the suit land by way of adverse possession on the ground that there was no evidence at all to substantiate the plea of adverse possession raised by the plaintiff. These are findings of fact recorded by the learned District Judge, therefore, do not call for any interference by this Court. Even otherwise, none of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff including her husband and Mukhtar Shama Nand (PW-1) had stated that the plaintiff had been in open, continuous, uninterrupted and hostile possession of the suit land for 12 or more years immediately before the institution of the suit. Even otherwise, none of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff including her husband and Mukhtar Shama Nand (PW-1) had stated that the plaintiff had been in open, continuous, uninterrupted and hostile possession of the suit land for 12 or more years immediately before the institution of the suit. Thus, the findings of the learned District Judge that the plaintiff had failed to prove the title over the suit land by adverse possession are based on the state of evidence on record, hence, does not call for any interference. 24. It may be pointed out that in the suit out of which RSA No. 409 of 1999 had arisen the defence of the plaintiff was that she is owner in possession of the suit land by virtue of sale deed executed in her favour by Mohantru whereas in the suit out of which the present appeal arises her claim is that she purchased only a part of the suit land measuring 2-11 Bighas out of the suit land. Thus, the claim of the plaintiff had been inconsistent which fact also lends credibility to the defence of respondent Nos. 2 to 8. This question is accordingly disposed of. 25. In view of the findings recorded hereinabove, there is no merit and substance in the present appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.