JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.8.1994 passed by Addl. District Judge No.1, Bharatpur in Civil First Appeal No. 13/89 (Old No. 12/84) confirming the judgment and decree dated 5.1.1984 passed by Munsiff, Bharatpur in Civil Suit No. 5/79. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of this second appeal are that the plaintiff -appellant filed a civil suit against the defendant for declaration, permanent injunction and demolition of unauthorized construction raised by the respondent. The appellant purchased the land on 26.3.71 and defendant has also purchased the land from the same owner Shri Surendra Singh. There was a 5 feet lane between the two plots. It has been alleged in the plaint that defendant had encroached upon his land on 17.10.72. On the contention of the parties after hearing of the matter, the suit has been dismissed by the court below on the ground that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property and there is no evidence that defendant has dispossessed him on 17.10.72. Apart from it, the court below was also of the opinion that earlier the appellant- plaintiff has filed a suit on the same ground which was dismissed hence this second suit is barred by res judicata and suit has been dismissed, the appeal has also been dismissed on the same ground, hence this second appeal. 3. The appeal has been admitted on 13.7.989 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether when the plaintiff has been found to be owner of the property and his suit for permanent injunction has failed on the ground that he was not in possession of the properties on the date of filing of the suit, the subsequent suit for possession is barred by the principle of res- judicata ?" 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments and decree under appeal as well as perused the original record of the case. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments and decree under appeal as well as perused the original record of the case. 5. The facts are not in dispute that earlier the appellant has filed a suit for injunction and admittedly, the issue before the court was whether he has been dispossessed from the property on 17.10.72 which is the pin-pointed issue in the present matter also and both the courts below have rightly held that suit is barred by res judicata as per provisions of Section 11 Explanation IV CPC relief of possession might and ought to have been made a ground of attack in the former suit and appellant has purposefully not opted for the same. A matter which might have been made a ground of attack in the former suit but it was not done by the party will also be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in the second suit. There is no distinction between a claim made or might and ought to have been made. 6. Here in the present case, in earlier suit, the plaintiff could have claimed relief of possession but he has not opted for the same and in view of the provisions of Section 11 CPC, the plaintiff could not be permitted to raise the same cause twice. The matter of possession between the parties has already been decided on merits between the same parties in earlier proceedings and appellant could not be allowed to raise the same contention again and again. Issues in the earlier suit are identical with that of the present suit and courts below have rightly held that suit is barred by res judicata. 7. Reliance has been placed on Sri Chinnappa v. Corporation of the City of Bangalore, AIR 2005 Kant. 70 where after rejection of first suit, the property has been purchased by the plaintiff and second suit has been filed on the basis of tile which is not the case here. Further reliance has been placed on Ashok Kumar Srivastav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors., (1998) 4 SCC 361 where also it has been rightly held that maintainability of suit could be determined on the basis of pleadings made and stated relief claimed in the plaint. Further reliance has been placed on Ashok Kumar Srivastav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors., (1998) 4 SCC 361 where also it has been rightly held that maintainability of suit could be determined on the basis of pleadings made and stated relief claimed in the plaint. Here in the present case, in both the cases pleadings of the appellant are similar relief of possession which ought to have been claimed in the earlier suit has not been claimed, hence on the legal principle that no man should be vexed twice for the same cause, the courts below have rightly dismissed the suit and substantial question raised in this appeal is answered against the appellant.In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******