JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant who after having lost before both the learned Courts below has filed the instant appeal. (Parties hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and defendants.) 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he firstly got as mortgagee rights and thereafter as owner in possession by efflux of time and land measuring 3 kanal 13 marlas out of the following land:- (i) Land measuring 2372-49 bearing khewat No. 268, Khatoni No. 294, Khasra No. 2303 (28-80), 2304 (04-69), 2307 (309-00), 2308 (2030-00) as entered in jamabandi 2002-2003, situated in village Santokhgarh Shehar, Tehsil and District Una (HP) and also; (ii) Land measuring 1326-10, bearing khewat No. 539 min, khatoni No. 576 min, Khasra No. 2305 (26-10), 2306 (1300-00) as entered in jamabandi 2002- 2003, situated in village Santokhgarh Shehar, Tehsil and District Una (HP). 3. By way of foreclosure of mortgage and the entry in the name of defendants No. 1 to 4, 11 to 44 showing them as owners in possession in revenue record are wrong, null and void and they have no right to interfere in the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff, with the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his rights and in the alternate suit for possession. 4. It was averred that predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 4, namely, Ram Asra had mortgaged with possession of land measuring 3 kanal 13 marlas being half share out of land measuring 7K-6 mls., bearing khewat No. 151, khatonuni No. 237, 238, Musteel Khasra No. 14/7/1 (2-2) (min Shumal), 14/2 (4-14), 7/1 min (0-10) Janub jamabandi 1968-69 situated in Village Santokhgarh, Tehsil and District Una (HP) alongwith all rights, title and interest for mortgage money of Rs.4000/- with one Milkhi Ram vide Basika No. 894 dated 04.09.1971. The said mortgage deed was duly registered by the Sub Registrar Una and the mutation No. 2523 was also sanctioned in favour of said Milkhi Ram on 13.01.1973 at the spot by the Revenue Officer. It is further stated that after the death of said Milkhi Ram, his property including the suit land was inherited by his widow Ram Asri being the sole legal heir of said Milkhi Ram and mutation No. 122 was sanctioned in her name as shown in Missal Hakiar Bandobast Jadid Sani 2000-2001. It is further stated that after the death of said Milkhi Ram, his property including the suit land was inherited by his widow Ram Asri being the sole legal heir of said Milkhi Ram and mutation No. 122 was sanctioned in her name as shown in Missal Hakiar Bandobast Jadid Sani 2000-2001. She remained in possession as mortgagee. It was stated that now after the death of Ram Asri, the present plaintiff got all the rights, title and interest of the property of said Ram Asri including all the mortgagee rights as she had executed a valid will dated 07.05.2002 in favour of plaintiff which was duly attested and registered by the Sub Registrar, Una and after her death mutation No. 437 was also sanctioned in favour of plaintiff. It was further stated that plaintiff also got the mortgagee right, title and interest of the mortgage land vide mutation No. 437 and the said mutation was also shown in jamabandi for the year 2002-2003 in khewat No. 268. It was stated that total land measuring 7 kanals 6 marlas was previously owned by predecessor in interest of defendants No. 1 to 10 as shown in jamabandi 1968-69 bearing khewat No. 151 min, khatoni No. 237 min, 238 min, khasra No. 14/7/1 (2-12) and 14/6/2 (4-14) and now during new settlement in the village the new khasra Nos. 2305 (28-80), 2304 (04-69), 2307 (309-00), 2308 (2030-00) are derived from all khasra No. 14/6/2 as shown in Missal Hakiat bandobast Jadid Sani 2000-2001. It was stated that now the defendants in connivance with each other and also on the basis of some misunderstanding and mis interpretation of revenue entries are threatening to interfere in the suit land since a month back and they were also asked not to do so but they refused to accede to the requests of the plaintiff. It was stated that earlier the defendants No. 1 to 4 filed a civil suit No. 52 of 1984 and same was dismissed on 30.08.1989 by Ld. Sub Judge - II, Una and appeal was also dismissed on 13.12.1994 by Ld. District Judge, Una and final appeal was also dismissed by Hon'ble High Court of H.P., Shimla. It was stated that now during change of facts and circumstances of the case the judgment passed earlier by Civil Court has got no bearing on the present point of issue. District Judge, Una and final appeal was also dismissed by Hon'ble High Court of H.P., Shimla. It was stated that now during change of facts and circumstances of the case the judgment passed earlier by Civil Court has got no bearing on the present point of issue. As now, the present plaintiff has derived all the mortgagee right, title and interest of the suit land from said Ram Asri vide mutation No. 437. Moreover, the entire land 7 kanal 6 marlas was never partitioned between the parties and now points at issue are not the same. Hence, the said judgment are also not applicable in the present case. The status of the present plaintiff is now that of firstly as mortgagee in possession and now as owner in possession by efflux of time by way of foreclosure of mortgage rights as the said land was mortgaged on 04.09.1971 and till now that has not been redeemed. So, now the plaintiff has become owner of the same and the entry in the revenue record to the contrary is not binding on the right, title and interest of plaintiff. The cause of action accrued to the plaintiff since a month back from the date of threats and also a week prior to filing the plaint from the day of threats. Hence the suit. 5. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants, which has been contested by filing written statement on behalf of defendants No. 11 to 14, wherein preliminary objection regarding resjudicata, estoppel, plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land, the suit is not maintainable, suit is not within time, suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, no locus-standi, suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction have been taken. On merits, it was stated that plaintiff had no right, title and interest in the suit land, neither he was in possession of the same in any capacity. It was stated that replying defendants were not bound by any mortgage and if any mortgage was proved then that had no effect on rights of replying defendants who were in possession of the suit land as tenants at will since the time of their predecessors-in-interest and have become owners in possession of same by the operation of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. It was further submitted that since the plaintiff was not in possession, so no question of threatening him arises. It was stated that upto final decision of H.P. High Court in RSA No. 56/1995 and RSA No. 120/1995 decided on 15.11.2006, the replying defendants have been proved and declared to be in possession of the suit land as tenants at will under the owners and the entries in the name of present plaintiff Tulsa Singh and alleged mutation under Section 104 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act in his favour have been declared to be null and void. It was stated that plaintiff was bound by the judgment and decree of civil suit No. 52/1984 and its final findings upto Hon'ble H.P. High Court, Shimla and plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct and final findings of aforesaid court. It was stated that matter regarding the suit land between the parties has directly, substantially been decided by the competent courts of law, therefore, this Court has no power and jurisdiction to entertain and to decide the present suit and the suit be dismissed be costs. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration as prayed? OPP 2. Whether the suit is barred under Section 11 CPC as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit, as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the suit has been filed beyond limitation, as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder & non-joinder of parties, as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit as alleged? OPD 8. Whether the suit is not properly valued, as alleged? OPD 9. Relief. 7. After recording evidence and evaluating the same, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit and the appeal filed against the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.04.2018, constraining the plaintiff to file the instant appeal. 8. It is vehemently argued by Shri Prashant Pandey, Advocate that findings recorded by learned Courts below are perverse inasmuch as it wrongly held the present suit to be not maintainable in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in RSAs No. 56 & 120 of 1995, decided on 15.11.2006. 8. It is vehemently argued by Shri Prashant Pandey, Advocate that findings recorded by learned Courts below are perverse inasmuch as it wrongly held the present suit to be not maintainable in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in RSAs No. 56 & 120 of 1995, decided on 15.11.2006. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 9. It is not in dispute that defendants No. 1 to 4 had earlier filed Civil Suit No. 52 of 1984, which was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge, Una, on 30.08.1989 and the appeal filed against the same was also dismissed on 13.12.1994 by the learned District Judge, Una and thereafter filed the regular second appeal No. 56 of 1995. 10. The facts before the Court therein were that late Ram Asra filed a suit that he was owner to the extent of half share of 7 kanal 6 Marlas land bearing Khasra Nos. 14/7/1 and 14/6/2 and whereas the other half share was owned by Yog Raj and Mohan Lal. In the year 1971, Ram Asra had created mortgage of this land in favour of one Milkhi Ram. It was alleged that Milkhi Ram after creation of mortgage had created tenancy in favour Haria and Tulsa. Tulsa was alleged to have created tenancy over land bearing Khasra No. 14/7/1 and Haria over Khasra No. 14/6/2. Milkhi Ram died and was represented by his widow Ram Asri, who alongwith Tulsa filed a common written statement, in which they stated that the land had been in occupation of the tenants prior to creation of the mortgage and Khasra No. 14/7/1, measuring 2 kanals 12 marlas was in possession of Tulsa Singh and the land measuring 4 kanals 14 marlas bearing khasra No. 14/6/2 was in possession of Haria as tenant. 11. Haria in his separate written statement claimed that the whole of the suit land had been in his possession as tenant before creation of the mortgage and he continued to be in possession of the whole land after creation of the mortgage right up to the date of institution of the suit. 12. The trial Court held that Haria was in occupation of whole of the suit land as a tenant before the creation of the mortgage and continued to be so even thereafter and consequential the suit was dismissed. 12. The trial Court held that Haria was in occupation of whole of the suit land as a tenant before the creation of the mortgage and continued to be so even thereafter and consequential the suit was dismissed. Two separate appeals were filed against the dismissal of the appeal one by the plaintiff therein and the other by the present appellant Tulsa Singh, who was defendant No. 2 in the said suit. 13. Both the appeals were dismissed by the learned District Judge leading to the filing of two separate appeals being RSA No. 56 of 1995 and RSA No. 120 of 1995. Both these appeals came up for consideration before this Court on 15.06.2006. 14. RSA No. 56 of 1995 was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are legally sustainable so far as it relate to the declaration given inter se the defendants? 2. Whether the mutation sanction under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act without being challenged in a proper proceeding can be held to be baseless by the learned Civil Court? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and mutation in favour of the appellant under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act becoming final, the civil court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit? 4. Whether in the instant case the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court case titled as Chuhniya vs. Jindu reported in, (1991) 1 ShimLC 223 is fully applicable and the impugned judgments are without jurisdiction? 5. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are the result of mis-appreciation and mis-interpretation of law? 15. Whereas RSA No. 120 of 1995 was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the tenancy created by the mortgagee is legally binding on the mortgagor or not? 2. Whether lower appellate Court mis-understood and mis-interpreted the documentary as well as oral evidence on the record? 3. Whether the revenue entries as incorporated in the jamabandi for the year 1968-69 could be changed without the knowledge of predecessor-in-interest of the appellants/plaintiffs, if so, its effects? 4. Whether the proprietory rights can be given qua the land which is self cultivation possession of the land owner and that too in the absence of landlord? 16. 3. Whether the revenue entries as incorporated in the jamabandi for the year 1968-69 could be changed without the knowledge of predecessor-in-interest of the appellants/plaintiffs, if so, its effects? 4. Whether the proprietory rights can be given qua the land which is self cultivation possession of the land owner and that too in the absence of landlord? 16. After recording detailed findings and giving elaborate reasons, this Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.2006 dismissed both the appeals. 17. The long and short effect of the aforesaid decision is that this Court categorically held Haria to be the non-occupancy tenant even prior to the creation of the mortgage, who in view of Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act (for short the Act) had become the absolute owner of the suit land by virtue of Section 104 of the Act. 18. Thus, once Haria is found to have been inducted as a tenant at Will by the mortgagor prior to the creation of the mortgage and his possession has been found to be continuous is thus deemed to have become the owner of the suit land by virtue of conferment of proprietary rights, which otherwise is automatic. 19. Thus, what stands concluded in the earlier litigation is that the Haria had been inducted as a tenant by the mortgagor prior to the present mortgage and by virtue of Section 104 of the Act, he was automatically entitled to conferment of proprietary rights under the Act. 20. Once that be so, obviously then the rights created under the mortgage would no longer subsist after Haria had already been conferred with the proprietary rights. 21. As observed earlier, the suit filed by the mortgagor for redemption against Ram Asri wife of Milkhi Ram through whom now the plaintiff claimed title on the basis of Will was dismissed up to this Court and not only was the plaintiff a party to the said suit but he had independently filed an appeal before the first appellate Court and thereafter regular second appeal No. 56 of 1995 before this Court. Thus, once the matter finally decided in the previous litigation between the same parties, therefore, clearly the present suit is not maintainable. Thus, once the matter finally decided in the previous litigation between the same parties, therefore, clearly the present suit is not maintainable. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by learned Courts below cannot be said to be perverse or in any manner illegal so as to warrant interference by this Court in this regular second appeal. 22. As a matter of fact, the filing of the suit out of which the instant appeal arises is nothing but re-litigation at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant, which is impermissible in law. Normally such kind of appeal ought to be dismissed with heavy costs, however, taking into consideration the fact that the notices have not been issued to the opposite party, I refrain from doing so. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.