JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree, rendered on 21.12.2001 by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993, whereby, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs/respondents and reversed the findings of the learned trial Court rendered on 19.12.1992 in Civil Suit No. 41 of 1988. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the suit land comprised in khata No.3 min, Khatauni No.4 min, khasra No.181 and 193, measuring 7 Kanals and 9 Marlas is stated to shown in the names of defendants No.7 to 11 and as per the further entries, mutation No.192 thereof has been shown to be entered on the basis of the sale thereof by defendants No.7 to 9 in favour of defendants No.3 to 5. According to the plaintiffs, previously, a civil suit was filed by defendants No.7 to 9 against them. The dispute therein was so as to the cultivation of the suit land. The suit was decreed in favour of the defendants No.7 to 9. The plaintiffs, however, filed Civil Appeal No.64 of 1983 in the Court of learned District Judge, Hamirpur and the same was decided on 20.8.1984. As a matter of fact, it is the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2, who were stated to be cultivating the suit land as tenant-at-will under the previous owners Mansha Ram and others in equal shares. During the pendency of Civil Appeal No.64 of 1983 in the Court of District Judge, Hamirpur, a compromise was arrived at in between the parties. The statements of the previous owners Bihari Lal, Suresh Kumar, Asha Devi, Mansha Ram and Khazana Ram etc., were recorded. The statements of the plaintiffs as well as that of defendants No.1 and 2 were also recorded regarding the compromise. As per the compromise, the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 have paid money to the previous owners Mansha Ram etc. The defendants No.1 and 2 thus because owners qua their share in the suit land which was in their possession i.e. half of the suit land, whereas the plaintiffs came to be in possession of the remaining half share i.e. measuring 3 Kanal and 15 Marlas till date, to the knowledge of the defendants. The defendants No.1 and 2 thus because owners qua their share in the suit land which was in their possession i.e. half of the suit land, whereas the plaintiffs came to be in possession of the remaining half share i.e. measuring 3 Kanal and 15 Marlas till date, to the knowledge of the defendants. The plaintiffs came to know for the first time in the month of May, 1987 that their names have not been entered in the revenue record and that there exists an entry with respect to Mutation No. 192 qua the suit land. It is in the month of June, 1987, the defendants No.1 to 6 started causing interference in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land at the pretext that the same was purchased by them from defendants No.7 to 11. As per further case of the plaintiffs, as a matter of fact, the said defendants had left with no title in the suit land after the decision of Civil Appeal No.64 of 1983 vide judgment dated 20.8.1984. The said judgment was binding on the defendants. Thus, any sale of the suit land after the decision of the aforesaid appeal, according to them, is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Mutation No.192 entered on the basis thereof is also claimed to be void. It has also been submitted that no interference in their possession has been caused by defendants No.7 to 11, however, it is defendants No.1 to 6 who are interfering in the suit land. The plaintiffs even requested the said defendants to get the entries with respect to the suit land corrected and even notices were also served upon them, but of no avail. It has been submitted that the plaintiffs have also paid the money in lieu of the price of the suit land in their share. The defendants have thus no legal right to cause any sort of interference therein. In view of this back drop, the plaintiffs have sought a decree for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 6 from causing any sort of interference over the suit land. 3. The defendants No.1 to 5 and 7 to 11 have contested the suit. 3. The defendants No.1 to 5 and 7 to 11 have contested the suit. They filed the written statement and raised preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable in the present form, suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, no cause of action exists in favour of the plaintiffs to file the suit and that they are estopped from instituting the same by their act and conduct. On merits, it is admitted that a Civil Suit was filed by defendants No.7 to 9 and that the same was decreed in their favour. It is, however, submitted that the suit land was never in possession of the plaintiffs. No compromise is also stated to be arrived at between them and the plaintiffs in the Court of District Judge, Hamirpur. The plaintiffs were stated to be never in possession of the suit land and as such, there is no question of causing any interference in their possession by the defendants. The defendants No.1 to 6 are stated to be not bound by the result of previous litigation qua the suit land, if any, because of they purchased the same for consideration. The suit has thus been sought to be dismissed. 4. Defendant No.6 in his separate written statement has also raised the preliminary objections so as to the suit is not maintainable, barred by limitation, there exists no cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs to file the suit and that since he as well as his brothers are bona fide purchaser under registered sale deed dated 22.8.1983 in respect of the suit land and as such, the compromise, if any, arrived at between the plaintiffs and previous owner, is not binding upon them. Also that he as well as his two brothers have spent a sum of Rs.9000/- for the improvement of the suit land. It has also been submitted that the plaintiff is estopped by his acts, deeds and conduct from filing the present suit. On merits, defendant No.6 has offered denial to the averments in the plaint. 5. The plaintiffs/respondents filed replications to the written statements of the defendants/appellants, wherein, they denied the contents of the written statements and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:- 1. 5. The plaintiffs/respondents filed replications to the written statements of the defendants/appellants, wherein, they denied the contents of the written statements and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? …..OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit land, as alleged? ……OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present from, as alleged in preliminary objections No.1 and 2? ….OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?……OPD 5. Whether the suit is time barred? …OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action, as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the alleged compromise decree is based on fraud as alleged? OPD 1 to 5, 7. 8. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing this suit? OPD 9. Whether defendant No.6 along with his two brothers is a bonafide purchaser of the suit land as alleged, if so, its effect? OPD-6 10. Whether the defendants have made any improvement over the suit land as alleged, if so, to what extent and effect? OPD 10.A. Whether the compromise has no legal force, as alleged? OPD. 11. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of the evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents. In appeal, preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court by the plaintiffs/respondents before the learned first Appellate Court, the learned first Appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 8. Now the defendants/appellants have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, assailing the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court in its impugned judgment and decree. When the appeal came up for admission on 18.6.2002, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree rendered by the learned first Appellate Court on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the unsigned compromise can be held to be a valid compromise and the judgment passed on such compromise not confirming the mandatory requirements of Order 23 is illegal and invalid? 2. Whether the unsigned compromise can be held to be a valid compromise and the judgment passed on such compromise not confirming the mandatory requirements of Order 23 is illegal and invalid? 2. Whether the appellants No.3 to 5 are the bonafide purchasers as per sale deed dated 22.8.1983 and are not bound by the alleged compromise which was arrived in the year 1994 when such persons had left with no interest? 3. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is vitiated for mis construction and misinterpretation of sale deed Ex.DW1/A and the Ex.P-4 judgment dated 20.8.1994? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 3. 9. The plaintiffs herein were defendants in a previous suit whereas the defendants herein were plaintiffs therein. In an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.64 of 1983, preferred by the plaintiffs herein against the judgment and decree of 11.4.1983 of the learned Sub Judge, Hamirpur, the learned District Judge in his judgment comprised in Ex. P-3 on the strength of the statements of the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, defendants herein. The previous suit inter se the parties at lis before this Court, though in contradistinct capacities, aforesaid, was also qua the suit land analogous to the suit land in the instant suit. Even though, the learned trial Court in its judgment and decree had answered issue No. 10 (A) in favour of the defendants, however, the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in his judgment and decree impugned before this Court reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellants contends with force and vigour that the strength and sinew of the previous judgment recorded by the District Judge, Hamirpur in a lis inter se the parties at lis before this Court though in contradistinct capacities aforesaid anvilled purportedly on the statements of the parties stands eroded, in the face of their being no demonstrative evidence on record to portray that the previous judgment and decree comprised in Ex. P-3 for lending it legal force and tenacity within the meaning of Order 23, was preceded by statements of the contesting parties therein. The above argument is highly fallacious and is bereft of legal vigour. P-3 for lending it legal force and tenacity within the meaning of Order 23, was preceded by statements of the contesting parties therein. The above argument is highly fallacious and is bereft of legal vigour. Consequently, it ought to stand disapprobation from this Court for the following reasons:- (a) The factum of PW-1 Shri B.D Rattan who at the relevant time was the Reader of the learned District Judge, Hamirpur as well as the deposition of PW-2 Shri Subhash Chand, who was posted as translator in the Court of the learned District Judge, Una and who was on tour to Hamirpur along with the then learned District Judge while the latter having the charge of Hamirpur Civil and Sessions Division having both unanimously deposed that the statements of the parties were recorded at the dictation of the Presiding Officer besides their having proceeded to also depose that the statements of the parties to the lis in an appeal before the learned District Judge, Hamiprur who thereupon rendered his judgment and decree are comprised in Ex. P3, bear Exts. PW-1/A, 1/B, 2/A and 2/B, which aforesaid exhibits comprise certified copies thereof. In face thereof when there is dearth of evidence or in fact abysmal lack of evidence to portray that the certified copies of the statements of the parties to the lis are shorn of their authenticity, therefore, it is to be concluded as aptly done by the learned First Appellate Court that it was on the strength of the statements of the parties to the lis in the previous litigation that the learned District Judge rendered a compromise decree comprised in Ex.P3. In sequel and also in face of the fact that even if assuming that any taint of illegality was, as such, acquired by the judgment and decree of the then learned District Judge, Hamirpur while rendering a compromise decree comprised in Ex.P3, the validity thereof was impeachable at the instance of the aggrieved by resorting to file an appeal or petition under Order 23, Rule 3 CPC. However, the aggrieved has omitted to take recourse to the aforesaid provisions of law for assailing or impeaching the legality of the decree rendered by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur comprised in Ex.P3. However, the aggrieved has omitted to take recourse to the aforesaid provisions of law for assailing or impeaching the legality of the decree rendered by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur comprised in Ex.P3. Consequently, for omission on the part of the aggrieved to assail it by taking recourse to the legally ordained measures, they are now estopped as well as barred from assailing the validity of the judgment and decree rendered by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur comprised in Ex.P-3. 10. In aftermath, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur comprised in Ex.P-3 qua analogous suit land inter partes, the parties at lis before this Court acquires finality as well as conclusiveness. It having determined the plaintiffs herein, who were defendants therein to be entitled to the ½ share i.e. 3 kanals and 15 marlas in the suit land in their capacity as tenants in possession, is too a clinching factum which precludes its reopening or re-determination. Though, during the pendency of the civil appeal, a sale deed comprised in Ex.DW1/A was executed qua the suit land inter se the defendants No.4 to 6 as vendees under defendants No.7 to 11, however, the factum of execution of sale deed comprised in Ex.DW1/A does not either abrogate, detract or dilute the effect of a previous conclusive determination comprised in Ex.P3, inter se the parties at lis herein, who previously were therein in inter se contra-distinct capacities aforesaid. Preponderantly further more the effect of EX.DW1/A in not begetting any dilution of the verdict comprised in Ex.P-3 in the previous litigation inter se the parties at lis wherein the rights of the plaintiffs herein, who were defendants therein were left intact to the extent of ½ share in the suit land gets aggravated strength from the factum of the Ex.DW1/A having been executed inter se the defendants No. 4 to 6 and 7 to 11 preceding the rendition of the compromise decree comprised in Ex.P3 by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur. Its having been hence executed during the pendency of the appeal inter se the parties at lis, though in contradistinct capacities therein, is obviously hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. In aftermath as aptly concluded by the learned first Appellate Court in its impugned judgment and decree it vests no right, title or interest in the vendees qua the suit land. In aftermath as aptly concluded by the learned first Appellate Court in its impugned judgment and decree it vests no right, title or interest in the vendees qua the suit land. Consequently, the findings of the learned first Appellate Court are based upon a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law No. 1 to 3 are answered against the defendants/appellants and in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. 11. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal preferred by the defendants/appellants is dismissed and the judgment and decree rendered by the learned first Appellate Court is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned Courts below be sent back forthwith. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. No costs.