Judgment Kiran Anand Lall, J. 1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant whose suit for declaration and consequential relief of possession, was dismissed by the trial court, holding that it was barred by the principle of res-judicata and the verdict of dismissal was upheld by the District Judge, in first appeal. 2. Facts of the case, in a nut-shell, are that Mangal Das appellant had filed the suit, averring that he is Mohatmim of Mandir Thakur Ji Maharaj, which is dohlidar of the suit land, measuring 10 kanals 4 marlas and detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint. The dohli was created by Ishwar etc., for meeting out the expenses of services of the Thakur Ji Maharaj and he used to cultivate this land as Mohatmim of the Mandir. But, as in the revenue record, name of Mohar Singh, father of the defendant-respondent, who had died long back viz. about 10 years prior to the filing of the suit was being shown in the column of cultivation as Gair-Maurusi, without payment of any rent, occasion for filing the suit arose. 3. The defendant-respondent contested the suit. According to him, the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata as earlier also, there had been litigation between the parties, about this land and the same was finally decided in favour of the respondent holding that neither the Mandir was dohlidar nor the appellant was its Mohatmim. Plea of estoppel was also taken up. Suit was also stated to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and its maintainability in the form in which it was filed, was also challenged. On merits, it was pleaded that the appellant had no concern with the suit land. The trial court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner (Dholidar) of the suit land? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the trees on the suit land? OPP 3. Whether the present suit is barred by principle of res-judicata, if so, to what effect? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Relief. 4. On completion of trial, all the issues were decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent, and the suit was dismissed. 5. OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Relief. 4. On completion of trial, all the issues were decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent, and the suit was dismissed. 5. The plaintiff-appellant challenged the verdict of dismissal, before the District Judge, Narnaul, in appeal. But that, too, was dismissed. He, therefore, filed a regular second appeal before this Court. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and have also carefully gone through the trial court records. None appeared for the respondent when the appeal was taken up for hearing. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not disputed that there had been an earlier litigation for possession of the land involved in the present suit, and parties to that litigation were Mangal Das appellant, in his capacity as Mohatmim of Murti Mandir Thakur Ji (as plaintiff), Mohar Singh (as defendant), father of Johri respondent and one more. The verdict of litigation went in favour of Mohar Singh respondent (and his co-defendant) up to second appeal and attained finality. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of judgment vide which second appeal was dismissed by this Court. The main issue involved in that suit was as to whether Murti Mandir Thakur Ji (plaintiff) through its Mohatmim Mangal Das was dohlidar of the land in question and in that capacity had a right to sue for possession. But the facts were found against the Mandir and suit was dismissed, right up to second appeal. Exactly same points have been agitated again, in the present litigation. 8. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, the concurrent verdict of the courts below, in the present litigation, holding suit to be barred by the principle of res judicata on account of the decision already given in the previous suit, is liable to be set aside as the earlier suit was not between same parties. He pointed out that the present suit was filed against Johri respondent, whereas the previous one was against his (of John respondent) father, Mohar Singh. This contention, in my view, need be taken note of, only for being rejected. Section 11 CPC, which contains the bar of res judicata, reads as under: 11. He pointed out that the present suit was filed against Johri respondent, whereas the previous one was against his (of John respondent) father, Mohar Singh. This contention, in my view, need be taken note of, only for being rejected. Section 11 CPC, which contains the bar of res judicata, reads as under: 11. Res Judicata.- No Court shall try and 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. 9. A bare perusal of this provision makes it clear that for attracting the bar of res-judicata previous suit need not be between the same parties. This bar would operate even if the previous suit was between the parties under whom they or any of them claim. In the case in hand, the earlier litigation was between Mangal Das appellant and the father of Johri respondent (viz. Mohar Singh). The bar of res-judicata would, therefore, clearly apply to this case and the Courts below had rightly non-suited Mangal Das appellant (plaintiff), holding the suit as barred by res-judicata. 10. No other argument was addressed. 11. No fault can, thus, be found with the concurrent finding of the two courts below, holding the suit as barred by res judicata. The appeal shall, accordingly, stand dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.