Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—Both these second appeals have been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, who are the legal representatives of original plaintiff, late Sh. Nana Nath Yogi, against the Municipal Board, Kapasan, and private defendants, viz. Gulam Rasul and legal heirs of Ibrahim, to whom plots out of disputed land were sold by Municipal Board, Kapasan. 2. The learned trial court of Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kapasan, District: Chittorgarh, vide the judgment and decree dated 18.05.1990 partly decreed the suit filed by the original plaintiff, Nana Nath Yogi, being Suit No.2/1990 (129/1979)- Nana Nath Yogi vs. Ibrahim (D) through LR's & Ors., holding that the a particular piece of land was being used as 'graveyard' ¼'ke'kku½ by the plaintiff, and therefore, the defendant, Municipal Board, Kapasan, was injuncted not to interfere with the same. The relevant findings of the learned trial court partly decreeing the plaintiff's suit are quoted herein below for ready reference: - ^^vuqrks"k oknh lEiw.kZ fooknxzLr ryh;s ij viuk LokfeRo rFkk dctk lkfcr ugha djok ik;k gSA fook|d la-1 ds vuqlkj oknh dk dCtk dsoy fooknxzLr ryh;s esa cus egknsoth ds pcqrjs rFkk mlds iwoZ esa iM+s gq, iRFkj rFkk feÍh ds eycs ij fl) gqvk gSA vc gesa ;g ns[kuk gS fd mä dCts ds vk/kkj ij oknh dks D;k vuqrks"k fn;k tk ldrk gSa oknh dk fooknxzLr ryh;s ds mä Hkkx ij yEcs le; ls dCtk lkfcr gqvk gS rFkk og yEcs le; ls ml ij vius /kkfeZd vuq"Bku vkfn dj jgk gSA fof'k"B vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e 1963 dh /kkjk 38¼3½ ds vuqlkj ;fn oknh ds fdlh lEifÙk ij vf/kdkj ;k miHkksx esa gLr{ksi gksrk gS rks U;k;ky; LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dj ldrk gSA vr% esjh jk; esa fooknxzLr ryh;s ds mä Hkkx ds lEcU/k esa LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh fd;k tkuk mfpr gSA esjh jk; esa oknh mä dCts'kqnk Hkkx dk leqfpr :i ls miHkksx dj lds rFkk vius /kkfeZd vuq"Bku dj lds rFkk Hkfo"; esa Hkh fooknksa dh cgqyrk dks jksdk tk lds] blds fy;s eSa ;g vko';d le>rk gw¡ fd fooknxzLr ryh;sa esa oknh ds dCts'kqnk mä Hkkx dks lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;A vr% mä egknsoth ds pcwrjs ds iwoZ esa 12 QhV yEck Hkkx rFkk mÙkj ,oa nf{k.k esa 7&7 QhV yEcs Hkkx ds lEcU/k esa LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh fd;k tkuk mfpr le>rk gw¡A vkns'k oknh dk okn fo:) izfroknhx.k vkaf'kd :i ls fMØh fd;k tkrk gS rFkk bl vk'k; dh LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjhdh tkrh gs fd izfroknhx.k fooknxzLr ryh;sa esa cus egknsoth ds pcwrjs rFkk mlds iwoZ esa 12 QhV rFkk mÙkj esa nf{k.k esa 7&7 QhV yEcs Hkkx ds {ks= esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk gLr{ksi u djsa] u djkosaA okn dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, mHk; i{k viuk viuk O;; Lo;a ogu djsaA lgh@& vij eqfUlQ ,oa U;kf;d eftLVªsV] izFke oxZ] diklu ¼jkt-½ 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial court dated 18.05.1990, both plaintiff, Nana Nath Yogi, and defendant, Municipal Board, Kapasan, preferred separate appeals, being Appeal No.78/1993- Municipal Board, Kapasan vs. Nana Nath Yogi & Ors. and Appeal No.79/1993- Nana Nath Yogi vs. Municipal Board, Kapasan & Ors. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial court dated 18.05.1990, both plaintiff, Nana Nath Yogi, and defendant, Municipal Board, Kapasan, preferred separate appeals, being Appeal No.78/1993- Municipal Board, Kapasan vs. Nana Nath Yogi & Ors. and Appeal No.79/1993- Nana Nath Yogi vs. Municipal Board, Kapasan & Ors. These appeals came to be decided in favour of Municipal Board, Kapasan, vide judgment and decree dated 20.09.1994 with the following findings: - ^^vr% lEiw.kZ lk{; ;g of.kZr djrh gS fd jktLo vfHkys[k ,oa ljdkjh vfHkys[k esa ;g Hkwfe uxjikfydk ds uke ij ntZ gSA bl Hkwfe ij 25&30 lky igys fctyh dh dSaph yxh gqbZ gS] bl rF; dk oknh ukukukFk ds lHkh xokg Lohdkj djrs gSA ;g rF; Hkh oknh }kjk Lohdkj fd;k x;k Fkk fd lekf/k LFky tgka of.kZr fd;k x;k gS ml LFkku ij ,d pcwrjk cuk gqvk gS ftl egknsoth dh ewfrZ gSA oknh ds xokg ;g of.kZr djrs gS fd ukuk ukFk blh pcqrjs ij iqtk ikB djrk gSA vU; dksbZ iDdh lekf/k ;k pcqrjk cuk gqvk gksuk of.kZr ugha fd;k x;k gSA blh pcwrjh ds ikl dqEgkjksa us bZaVksa dk HkÍk pyk jgs gS ,oa uxjikfydk dk dqM+k djdV blh Hkwfe ij iM+k jgrk gSA bl fLFkfr dks Mh-MCY;w-1 n'kjFkey }kjk Li"V fd;k x;k FkkA vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk izfroknh ds dFkuksa dks blfy;s vLohdkj fd;k x;k fd dksbz LFkkuh; xokg izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk lk{; dks vLohdkj djus dk of.kZr dkj.k u rks ;qfä;qä gS u gh ekStwnk lk{; ds vuqdwy gSA i=koyh ij ,slh dksbZ lk{; ugha Fkh fd bl pcqrjh ds vkl ikl vU; lekf/k fLFkr gSA okn i= esa ;g Hkh dgh vfHkopuhr ugha fd;k x;k Fkk fd fookfnr Hkwfe dh okLro esa fdruh yEckbZ pkSM+kbZ FkhA izFke ckj U;k;ky; ds le{k xokg bldh 100 QhV yEch 200 QhV pkSM+h ;k 100 gkFk yEch of.kZr djrs gSA okni= esa oknxzLr Hkwfe o xqMfy;ka ukeh rkykc ds e/; lhek js[kk dk mYys[k vfHkopuhr ugha gSA vfHkopuksa ds vuqlkj oknxzLr Hkwfe dh lhek;sa lqfuf'pr guha FkhA oknh dsoy ek= mUgha rF;ksa dks lkfcr dj ldrk Fkk tks fd mlds }kjk vfHkopuhr fd;s x;sA vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; esa ;g /kkj.kk cukbZ Fkh fd oknh ds ifjokj dh lekf/k LFky dh Hkwfe dk {ks=Qy lqfuf'pr ugha gS] blh vk/kkj ij vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; us lEiw.kZ Hkwfe ij oknh dk dCtk gksuk vLohdkj fd;k FkkA izn'kZ 3] izn'kZ 4 o izn'kZ 5 nLrkost ls oknh ds dFku lkfcr ugha gq, Fks 84@80 okn i= dh udy izn'kZ 2 rFkk izn'kZ 4 FkhA uxjikfydk }kjk ;g Lohdkj ugha fd;k x;k Fkk fd ;g Hkwfe uxjikfydk dh ugha gSA izn'kZ 5 fu.kZ; ls Hkh oknh dks dksbZ vf/kdkj vftZr ugha gqvk FkkA izfroknh i{k }kjk vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k udy tekcUnh izn'kZ ,1] ipkZ ekSdk izn'kZ ,4 izLrqr fd;s x;s Fks] dfe'uj }kjk fnukad 29-4-76 dks fujh{k.k fd;k x;k FkkA bl fjiksVZ esa mYys[k fd;k x;k Fkk fd bczkfge dk Hkw[k.M nf{k.k esa gS o xqyke jlwy dk Hkw[k.M iwoZ esa gS] mlds iwoZ esa gh egknsoth dk prqrjk o ewfrZ gSA dfe'uj us ik;k Fkk fd ftl le; fujh{k.k fd;k x;k ml le; Hkw[k.M ij dksbZ lekf/k ;k lekf/k gksus dk fu'kku ekStwn ugha FkkA dfe'uj us ;g Hkh ik;k fd pcqrjh ds Bhd lkeus iRFkj iM+s gq, gSA /kkjk 145 na-iz-la- dh dk;Zokgh ,l-Mh-,Q- U;k;ky; esa blh vk/kkj ij [kkfjt dh xbZ Fkh fd fookfnr LFky oknh ds iwoZtksa dh tehu dk lekf/k LFky ugha FkkA dsoy ek= ih-MCY;w-2 feBwyky }kjk ;g of.kZr dj nsuk dh pcqrjh ds uhps papyukFk dh lekf/k gS dfFkr Hkw[k.M ;k lEiw.kZ Hkwfe ij viuk LokfeRo ,oa dCtk LFkkfir djus ds fy;s ,sls rF; ugha Fsk ftuls fcanw la[;k 1 o 2 oknh ds i{k esa fuf.kZr fd;s tk;A dfFkr pcwrjh ;g Loh—r rF; gS fd egknsoth dk efUnj gSA vr% bl LFkku ij iwtk o /kkfeZd dk;Z gksuk ;g bZ'kkjk ugha djrk Fkk fd fookfnr LFky ij ,d ek= oknh dh LokfeRo dh lEifÙk gSA vr% i=koyh ij ,slh dksbZ vk/kkj ugha Fkk fd ftlds vuqlkj ;g fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk fd fookfnr Hkwfe oknh ds LokfeRo dh o dCts dh Hkwfe gSA vr% lEiw.kZ foospu vuqlkj uxjikfydk mä Hkwfe dh ekfyd Fkh ,oa vf/kd ls vf/kd oknh ukuk ukFk Vªsl iklj gks ldrk FkkA ;g VªkbZ fof/k gS] Vªsl iklj Vªw vkWuj ds fo:) fu"ks/kkKk ugha ik ldrk gSA vr% fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnukad 18-5-90 vikLr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa okn ukukukFk ;ksxh [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k vihy la[;k 79@83 e; [kpkZ [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA vihy la[;k 78@93 e; [kpkZ Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnukad 18-5-90 vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA vihykUV uxjikfydk ds i{k esa ,oa jsLiksaMsaV ukuk ukFk ;ksxh ds fo:) vihy la[;k 78@93 Lohdkj dj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd okn oknh ukuk ukFk ¼jsLiksaMsaV½ e; [kpkZ [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA lgh@& ¼fl)kFkZ dqekj tSu½ vij ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k la-2 fpÙkkSM+x<+ ¼jkt-½** 4. The learned appellate court of Additional District Judge No.2, Chittorgarh, held that the plaintiff had failed to establish before the court below that entire land in question was being used as graveyard and, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff came to be rejected by the learned first appeal court and the counter claim (appeal) of the Municipal Board was allowed. 5. In the connected second appeal being SBCSA No.111/1995, a coordinate bench of this Court while admitting the said second appeal has framed following substantial question of law for consideration on 08.01.1997: 1. Whether the defendants are bound by the judgment Ex.5, as the said judgment would operate as res judicata so far the Municipality is concerned? 2. Whether the disputed land known as Chanchalia Bagh is a grave yard of Yogi Community and the finding contrary to it recorded by both the courts below are perverse and have been recorded in ignorance of material evidence record? 6. Mr. B.R. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants/plaintiffs relied upon Exhibit-5, an order passed by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kapasan, in another trial of Suit No.179/1979 Mohd. Wasim vs. Municipal Board, Kapasan, in which the said suit was decreed against the Municipal Board, Kapasan, exparte without any written statement filed by them and without any evidence being led by the Municipal Board. Wasim vs. Municipal Board, Kapasan, in which the said suit was decreed against the Municipal Board, Kapasan, exparte without any written statement filed by them and without any evidence being led by the Municipal Board. The relevant findings of the concerned Court in Ex.5 order dated 03.03.1983 are quoted herein below for ready reference: - ^^oknh us nkok dh iqf"V esa izys[kh; lk{; esa udy foØ; i=] udy uksfVl] vly jlhn 4 ,oa vly uksfVl is'k fd;sA izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugha gq,A rudh dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izfroknhx.k ij FkkA exj blds fy;s mUgksaus lk{; is'k ugha dh] vr% mldh lk{; can dhA nksuksa i{kksa dh cgl lqudj i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd v/;;u fd;k x;kA esjk fu"d"kZ bl izdkj gS %& lEiw.kZ nkok ds ,d gh rudh dk;e dh xbZ Fkh] vkSj mldks lkfcr djkus dk ftEek Hkh izfroknhx.k ij FkkA exj blds fy;s mlus dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha dh vr% bl rudh dk fu.kZ; izfroknhx.k ds fo:) gks tkus ls oknhx.k dk nkok lkfcr gS vkSj fMØh fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vr% cgd oknhx.k fo:) izfroknhx.k bl vej ds bLr djkj gd dh fMØh iznku dh tkrh gS ,oa ?kks"k.kk dh tkrh gS fd okn i= dh pj.k la[;k 2 esa of.kZr rfy;s ds lEcU/k esa fd;k x;k foØ; i= oknhx.k ds eqdkcys izHkkoghu null & void gS rFkk okn i= dh pj.k la[;k 1 esa of.kZr rfy;s dk ekfyd oknhx.k dks ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA oknhx.k ds i{k esa rFkk izfroknhx.k ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk Hkh iznku dh tkrh gS fd os [kqn ;k muds ukSdj ,tsUV dksbZ Hkh okn i= ds pj.k la[;k 1 esa of.kZr rfy;s ls oknhx.k dks csn[ky u djs ,oa mi;ksx o miHkksx esa ck/kk u MkysaA oknhx.k bl okn dk O;; Hkh izfroknhx.k ls izkIr djsaxsA fu.kZ; fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;kA lgh@& ¼euksgj flag u:dk½ ¼eqfULkQ ,oa U;kf;d eftLVªsV izFke oxZ] diklu^^ 7. Mr. B.R. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, therefore, submitted that the appellate court has erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and allowing the appeal of the Municipal Board as the Municipal Board was bound by the principle of constructive res-judicata in view of previous judgment of learned Munsif, where it could defend the said suit and did not lead any evidence in support of their claim over the land in question. 8. On the other hand, Mr. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Yashwant Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent, Municipal Board, Kapasan, urged that Ex.5 order could not be read against the Municipal Board in view of the fact that written statement was filed by it in the present case and evidence was also led including the Commissioner's report, which clearly established that the entire land in question was neither owned, nor was in possession of the plaintiff for being used as graveyard ¼'ke'kku½ and two plots were sold by the Municipality to private defendants, viz. Gulam Rasul and Ibrahim, were duly allotted to them for consideration; and without laying any challenge to such lease/sale-deed having been executed by Municipal Board in favour of private persons, the plaintiff could not question the same or succeed in the present suit. He, therefore, argued that the substantial question of law framed above in CSA No.111/1995 deserves to be answered against the plaintiffs/appellants and the appeals be dismissed. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the impugned judgment and decree of the courts below and record, this Court is satisfied that the present second appeals of the appellants/plaintiffs are devoid of any merit and the substantial questions of law framed above, deserve to be answered against the appellants and in favour of respondent, Municipal Board. The principle of res-judicata or constructive res-judicata obviously would apply only when the issue between the parties is same and they have been consciously decided by the same court once and thereafter same issue cannot be re-agitated in the subsequent suit. The plaintiffs could not have relied upon an exparte decree passed against the defendant, Municipal Board, in Ex.5 by the competent court on 03.03.1983 in a suit filed by one Mohd. Wasim against Municipal Board, Kapasan, in which for the reasons best known to Municipal Board, it did not led any evidence and no written statement was filed. The injunction decree exparte granted in the aforesaid suit, therefore, could not operate as a res-judicata, either constructive or otherwise against the defendant Municipal Board in the present trial. 10. Wasim against Municipal Board, Kapasan, in which for the reasons best known to Municipal Board, it did not led any evidence and no written statement was filed. The injunction decree exparte granted in the aforesaid suit, therefore, could not operate as a res-judicata, either constructive or otherwise against the defendant Municipal Board in the present trial. 10. The present trial was contested by the Municipal Board by filing written statement and thereafter also led the evidence, and therefore, the learned appellate court has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the land in question was neither entirely owned by the plaintiff nor was being used as graveyard or ¼'ke'kku½ . In view of above, the substantial questions of law framed above deserve to be answered against the appellants/plaintiffs and in favour of defendant, Municipal Board, Kapasan. They are accordingly so answered. 11. Accordingly, and in view of above, the present second appeals of the appellants/plaintiffs for two separate plots of private defendants, are found to be devoid of any merit and the same are hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned parties and the courts below forthwith.