JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff's suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for possession stood dismissed by the learned trial Court whereupon on standing aggrieved, the plaintiff/respondent herein preferred an appeal there from before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court, however, reversed the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court thereupon it decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 2. The defendants/appellants herein on standing aggrieved by the verdict of the learned First Appellate Court concerts through the instant appeal instituted here before to beget a reversal of its pronouncement. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants with respect to the suit land comprising of khata No. 117, khatauni No. 182, khasra Nos. 161, 162, measuring 0-10-84 hectares and khata No. 92, khatauni No. 144, khasra No.160 area measuring 0-01-71 hectares and khata No.129 min, Khatauni No. 197 min, khasra No. 159, area measuring 0-12-64 hectares, situated in mohal Thara, mauja Rajol, Tehsil Shahpur District Kangra on the allegations that she is owner in possession of the suit land over which her abadi is stated to be situated. She has also averred further that valuable trees are existing over the suit land and the defendants being strangers have no right, title or interest in the suit land. She has averred further that she is drawing all the usufructs of the suit land and the defendants have been interfering in the suit land without any right, title or interest. She has also pleaded that the parties had also been in litigation earlier qua the part of the suit land denoted by khasra No.159, and the present defendant Kesho Ram had filed a suit against Prithvi etc. about this part of the suit land which suit of Kesho Ram stood dismissed by the then learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Kangra on 14.05.1982 and that suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 34/1980. It is further pleaded that the defendants threatened her to dispossess her from the suit land in the end of Nov., 1999 and therefore, this suit for declaration and injunction. In the alternative, the plaintiff has also claimed relief of possession by demolition of structure if raised by the defendants in the suit land during the pendency of the suit. 3. In the alternative, the plaintiff has also claimed relief of possession by demolition of structure if raised by the defendants in the suit land during the pendency of the suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, valuation for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction and bad for non joinder of necessary parties. They have specifically averred that they are owners in possession of khasra No.159, out of the suit land over which their old house is situated and in which they have also laid plinth since July/August, 1999. They have averred further that the double storeyed house of defendant No.1 in in existence in Khasra No. 159, which is being extended and renovated by him from time to time. They have specifically pleaded that the abadi of the plaintiff is situated in the suit land comprising of khasra No.161 and 162 which were purchased by the plaintiff from Jaildar Onkar Singh and others vide registered sale deed dated 15.3.1968. They have further averred that the decision rendered by the Court in Civil Suit No. 34/80 dated 14.5.1982, is wrong and illegal and the said judgment is liable to be ignored and this judgment had been obtained by the said Prithvi Chand, in his favour and against the present defendant No.1 by fraud and collusion and therefore, it should not be taken into consideration. They have further averred further that their building material is lying over the suit land comprising khasra No.159 and the plinth has been laid down by them in this khasra number at a distance of about 2 feet away from the old abadi. They specifically averred that this building material valuing Rs.40,000/- is owned by defendant NO.2, who has laid the plinth in khasra No.159. In brief they have denied the case of the plaintiff qua khasra No.159 and have admitted the claim of the plaintiff qua other khasra numbers. 4. The plaintiff/respondents herein filed replication to the written statement of the defendants/appellants herein, wherein, she denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land, as prayed for? 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged/OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her act, conduct and acquiescences to file the suit, as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from the court, as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD. 8. Whether the judgment and decree in C.S. No. 34/1980 dated 14.05.1982 titled as Kehso vs. Prithi and another is illegal null and void as alleged? OPD. 9. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD. 10. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent herein/plaintiff. In an appeal, preferred there from by the plaintiff/respondent herein before the learned first Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 7. Now the defendants/appellants have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court assailing the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission on 23.06.2008, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted here before by the defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree of the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the appellate Court has totally misconstrued and misread the evidence in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has purchased khasra No.159 from Jaildar Onkar Singh and has become owner thereof? 2. Whether the trial Court has totally misread and misconstrued the documents Ext. D-1 to Ext. D-6 and Ex. D-9? Substantial Questions of Law No.1 and 2: 8. The plaintiff instituted an apposite suit before the learned trial Court claiming there within a relief for declaration along with a consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for possession qua the suit land comprised in khasra Nos. 161, 162, 160 and 159. D-6 and Ex. D-9? Substantial Questions of Law No.1 and 2: 8. The plaintiff instituted an apposite suit before the learned trial Court claiming there within a relief for declaration along with a consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for possession qua the suit land comprised in khasra Nos. 161, 162, 160 and 159. However, the defendants by instituting a written statement thereto conceded to the claim constituted by the plaintiff with respect to khasra Nos. 161, 162 and 160, thereupon the rendition rendered qua khasra numbers afore stated by the learned First Appellate Court in its impugned verdict here at warrants no interference. However, the sole contentious khasra number stands borne on field No. 159. The defendants had reared a claim qua contentious khasra No. aforesaid borne on field No. 159 on anvil of its holding old khasra No. 160, number whereof stood owned by their predecessor-in-interest one Shri Ram Sahai. In proof of the defendants holding the apposite lineage vis-a-vis Ram Sahai they depended upon a pedigree table comprised in Ex.D-5. On mere proof standing adduced by the defendants qua theirs holding the apposite lineage vis-a-vis one Ram Sahai would not per se beget an inference qua theirs establishing with firmness qua the contentious khasra number here at borne on field No.159 holding old number 160 which stood earlier held as owner by one Ram Sahai, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, on whose demise, they purportedly inherited it unless the apposite revenue record besides the apposite mutations occurring on demise of their predecessor-in-interest one Ram Sahai evidently unfolding the factum aforesaid stood adduced. However, though Ex. D-6 which comprises a copy of Missal Hakiyat holding there within reflections qua khasra No. 159, also it unfolds qua its old field number being khasra No. 160 besides Ex. D-4 holding reflections qua the old khasra number of the extantly contentious khasra number borne on field number 159 being khasra No.136/1 also with Ex. However, though Ex. D-6 which comprises a copy of Missal Hakiyat holding there within reflections qua khasra No. 159, also it unfolds qua its old field number being khasra No. 160 besides Ex. D-4 holding reflections qua the old khasra number of the extantly contentious khasra number borne on field number 159 being khasra No.136/1 also with Ex. D-3 reflecting qua the aforesaid khasra No.136/1 prior thereto holding khasra No.73, does emphatically establish the apt connectivity existing inter se the extantly contentious khasra No.159 with its hitherto old khasra numbers yet the aforesaid connectivity standing established inter se the extantly litigious khasra number 159 vis-a-vis its previously recorded khasra numbers would not beget any inference of one Ram Sahai holding at any time its ownership unless potent proof holding imminent reflections in consonance therewith stood adduced. Contrarily, with Ex. D-1 omitting to depict therein qua Ram Sahai holding ownership of khasra No.73, the oldest field number borne by the extantly litigious khasra number 159 takes the wind out of the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants qua theirs deriving ownership of the extantly litigious khasra number from one Ram Sahai, their predecessor-in-interest. 9. The learned First Appellate Court had also relied upon a previous conclusively recorded pronouncement comprised in Ex. P-5, pronouncement whereof stood recorded inter se the husband of the plaintiff herein, who stood impleaded therein as a co-defendant vis-a-vis the defendants herein, who stood impleaded therein as a defendant whereupon an inference stands aroused qua the findings recorded therein acquiring conclusivity besides holding binding effect vis-a-vis the khasra numbers enunciated therein, khasra numbers whereof are alike the khasra numbers borne in the extant suit, besides when therein the relief of declaration and injunction as stood prayed therein qua alike suit land therein vis-a-vis the suit land herein, stood declined, whereupon the principle of res judiciata estops the defendants herein to qua even khasra number 159 contend qua the decision recorded qua it in the previous conclusively recorded rendition comprised in Ex.P-5 being open to any assault standing constituted thereupon here before. However, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants has contended with vigour qua the principle of res judicata whereupon the claim reared by the defendants qua the suit land borne on contentious khasra No. 159, stands baulked especially when it stood subjected to a lis in the previous suit rather standing diluted besides whittled down conspicuously when absolute analogity inter se the parties contesting before the learned trial Court in the previous litigation vis-a-vis the legal combatants here at is imperative for attracting the principle of res judicata even vis-a-vis defendant No.1, whereas with co-defendant No.2 evidently not standing arrayed as a co-plaintiff along with Kesho in the previous suit facilitates him to espouse here before the apposite claim qua the extantly litigious khasra number 159. The aforesaid espousal addressed here before by the counsel for the appellants appears to be attractive yet the counsel while making the aforesaid espousal appears to remain oblivious qua the factum of one of the apposite issues which stood framed in the earlier suit was qua the suit being bad for non joinder or mis-joinder of proper parties whereupon despite the apposite onus standing cast upon the defendants therein, the plaintiff herein, the latter failed to discharge the onus cast thereon qua her whereupon for want of apposite evidence standing adduced thereon by the defendant therein/plaintiff herein, it stood decided vis-a-vis the plaintiff therein/codefendant here before. Even if the apposite findings on the aforesaid issues stood rendered by the learned trial Court, findings whereof stood sequeled by the co-defendant therein /plaintiff herein omitting to discharge the onus cast thereupon vis-a-vis them, did not per se capacitate the plaintiff there before/co-defendant here at to omit to by making an appropriate motion there before under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC seek impleadment along with him of co-defendant here at one Suresh Kumar. However, he did not concert to seek impleadment in the earlier suit of co-defendant Suresh Kumar as a co-plaintiff along with him, omission whereof ensued from his construing it befitting to solitarily propagate the claim reared in the previous suit also it appears qua his apposite omission there at standing sequeled by his not holding any tenacious empowerment to assert any claim qua alike suit land therein vis-a-vis suit land here at besides from his contemplating qua his also defending the cause of one Suresh therein. Also with khasra numbers 159 standing reflected in the apposite classification column of the relevant jamabandi to be abadi thereupon an inference ensues qua at the earlier stage the plaintiff therein/co-defendant herein for himself also for his son here at claiming therein the apposite relief, relief whereof qua his son stood visibly canvassed in the capacity of his being the father of co-defendant No.2 whereupon he conceived qua his solitarily during his life time holding the capacity to efficaciously propagate qua his son also the relief claimed solitarily therein by him, thereupon his standing goaded to omit to implead his son along with him, as a co-plaintiff in the previous suit, omission whereof does hence not render un-attracted qua his son the rigor of the principle of res judicata also with the claim for declaration qua the extantly litigious khasra No.159 canvassed earlier by the plaintiff therein/co-defendant herein Keso suffering the ill-fate of its dismissal would hence also constrain this Court to also estop co-defendant Suresh Kumar to concert to beget reversal of the previously recorded conclusive judicial pronouncement despite his not standing arrayed therein as a co-plaintiff along with his father hence with a minimal contradistinctivity occurring inter se the litigating parties earlier vis-a-vis the litigating parties here at nor would the Court hence nullify the previously recorded conclusive pronouncement embodied in Annexure P-5 and P-6, especially when the plaintiff there before also likewise here before has purportedly on anvil of his deriving the extantly litigious khasra No. 159 from his predecessor-in-interest has failed in the relevant concert, thereupon with no edifice remaining intact for the defendants/appellants herein to dehors assumingly non attraction here at vis-a-vis co-defendant Suresh Kumar for reasons afore stated the principle of res judicata, for hence theirs efficaciously assailing the impugned rendition, prods this Court to mete reverence to the renditions recorded under Ex. P-5 and Ex.P-6. 10. P-5 and Ex.P-6. 10. A thorough perusal of a previous judgment comprised in Ex.P-5, also a thorough perusal of the impugned rendition here at rendered by the learned First Appellate anvilled thereupon makes a display of the extantly contentious khasra number though contended to stand purchased under a sale deed executed vis-a-vis the deceased plaintiff Premi Devi yet with the sale deed comprised in Mark DA omitting to reflect therein qua the plaintiff purchasing the extantly litigious khasra number from its vendor does dehors the previously recorded conclusive pronouncements qua it, yet facilitate an inference qua the claim for ownership qua it canvassed by the plaintiff Premi Devi suffering invalidation. Consequently, substantial question of law No.1 is answered in favour of the appellants/defendants whereas substantial question of law No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents herein. 12. In view of above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is partly allowed and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed qua only khasra No. 159. In sequel, the judgment and decree rendered by the learned first Appellate Court is set aside only qua khasra No.159. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.