JUDGMENT : 1. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 2. By means of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the judgment and order dated 05.08.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Sitapur in civil revision No.4 of 2006 whereby the order dated 08.12.2005 passed by the trial court has been set aside and suit No.116 of 2001 has been held to be barred by principle of res judicata. 3. The brief facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner filed a suit no.116 of 2001 for cancellation of sale-deed on the ground that the respondents no.2 and 3 were his step brothers. The father of the petitioner under the influence of the respondents no.2 and 3 executed a sale-deed on 25.05.2000 without getting any sale consideration. Prior to this, the respondents no.2 and 3 also got a sale-deed executed by his father in respect of an agricultural land and a suit for cancellation of that sale-deed was also pending. According to the petitioner, the property in question was ancestral property and the petitioner had half share in the property. His father had no right to sell the entire disputed land. 4. The respondents no.2 and 3 in their written statement did not deny the relationship between the parties but it was said that the petitioner was not having good relation with his father. The petitioner had earlier filed a suit in the year 1987 being suit no.201 of 1987 against his father for the relief of permanent injunction which was dismissed on 07.02.1991. Thereafter the father of the petitioner sold the property in their favour by executing a registered sale-deed. The petitioner filed suit no.1 of 1996 against his father for cancellation of the sale-deed which was also dismissed on 16.04.2002. It was also pleaded by the respondents no.2 and 3 that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. 5. The petitioner filed replication and reiterated the contents made by him in the plaint. The learned trial court framed two issues and while deciding both the issues together, held that the suit was not barred by the principle of res judicata. 6. 5. The petitioner filed replication and reiterated the contents made by him in the plaint. The learned trial court framed two issues and while deciding both the issues together, held that the suit was not barred by the principle of res judicata. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents no.2 and 3 preferred civil revision no.4 of 2006 which was allowed by the impugned judgment and it was held that the suit filed by the petitioner was barred by the principle of res judicata. 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in order to attract the principle of res judicata, it is necessary that in the previous and the present suit, the subject matter must be the same and the controversy should also be the same. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, issues in suit no.201 of 1987 were different while in suit no.216 of 2001, the issue was entirely different. Even the property was not same and as such the decision in earlier suit no.201 of 1987 would not operate as res judicata. The learned revisional court erroneously held that in both the suits the issues were the same. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in suit no.201 of 1987, the case of the petitioner was that the plots in question were ancestral property and his father had no right to sell the entire property because the petitioner, by virtue of being his son, had half share. It was specific case of the petitioner that he was born prior to the abolition of Zamindari and had copareanary right in the property. His father wanted to sell the entire property illegally and, therefore, the suit was filed for restraining his father not to sell the entire property. In the subsequent suit filed by the petitioner for cancellation of sale-deed, the property was deferent because plot nos.584 and 1296 were sold by his father to Rana Pratap and Raj Kumar. The petitioner claiming himself to be the owner of the half of the property, filed suit for cancellation of sale-deed. 8. In the subsequent suit filed by the petitioner for cancellation of sale-deed, the property was deferent because plot nos.584 and 1296 were sold by his father to Rana Pratap and Raj Kumar. The petitioner claiming himself to be the owner of the half of the property, filed suit for cancellation of sale-deed. 8. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that in order to attract the principle of res judicata, it is necessary that the parties in both the suit must be the same and the controversy which is involved in both the suits is similar and the said controversy was decided in the earlier suit. The learned counsel has referred to the copy of plaint of the earlier suit in which the respondents no.2 and 3 were not parties. The suit was filed by the petitioner only to restrain his father from selling the entire property. The subsequent suit was filed by the petitioner against the purchaser, for the relief of cancellation of sale-deed. Thus, none of the conditions contemplated under Section 11 CPC were present. The revisional court while exercising its jurisdiction erroneously, held that the matter in issue in both the suit was similar and therefore the subsequent suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. 9. The learned counsel has also referred to the judgment passed in suit no.201 of 1987 to show that the suit was dismissed because the father of the petitioner was recorded as tenure holder and was also in possession and during the life time of his father, the petitioner had no right to file the suit. While dismissing the suit, it was also observed by the court that the right, if any, of the petitioner in respect of the property would arise only after the death of his father. It is not disputed that the father of the petitioner is now no more and during his life time, he sold the property to the respondents no.2 and 3. The petitioner in the subsequent suit prayed for the relief of cancellation of sale-deed on the ground that he was having half share in the property and his father had no right to sell the entire property. Thus, the question of application of section 11 or the principle of estoppal, does not arise. The petitioner in the subsequent suit prayed for the relief of cancellation of sale-deed on the ground that he was having half share in the property and his father had no right to sell the entire property. Thus, the question of application of section 11 or the principle of estoppal, does not arise. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that while exercising power of revision under Section 115 CPC, the impugned order could not have been passed. 10. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3 that in the earlier suit the learned court below framed specific issue as to whether the petitioner had half share in the property and this issue was decided against him. It was held that during the life time of his father, he could not claim any share in their ancestral property. This finding attained finality. The father of the petitioner sold the property during life time and as such the petitioner did not inherit any share in the property after the death of his father because the property was already sold. 11. In the subsequent suit which has been filed for cancellation of sale-deed, similar question is involved as to whether the petitioner had half share in the property. The cancellation of sale-deed would depend upon the finding as to whether the petitioner had any right in the property during the life time of his father. This issue has already been decided in earlier suit and therefore would certainly operate as res judicata. 12. So far as the jurisdiction of the revisional court is concerned, the same has rightly been exercised because while exercising power of revision, the revisional court is fully empowered to examine the correctness and legality of the order which the learned court below has done. 13. In view of the discussions made herein above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.