JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Since, both the appeals hence arise, from, a common verdict, hence both are amenable, for, a common verdict being recorded thereon. 2. Plaintiffs one Raj Kumari and @ Sukh Dei, claim, through theirs instituting Civil Suit No. 39/1 of 1999, before the learned Sub Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., hence pronouncement, of, a declaratory decree, for, setting aside mutation No. 164, and, also set forth a claim, for, setting aside the subsequent therewith entries, as, carried in the revenue records appertaining, to the suit land,and, besides thereto also, they, sought relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, becoming pronounced, vis-a-vis, the suit land, and, against the defendants, hence, restraining the defendants, from, interfering, with, their possession, vis-a-vis, the possession in the suit land, and, in addition thereto, they claim rendition of, a, decree of joint possession, in equal shares, to the extent of 1 biswa of the suit land out of total land measuring 5 biswas bearing khasra No. 81, comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 18/18, and, to the extent of 3 biswas out of total land measuring 6 biswas, bearing khasra No. 20 comprised in khewat/khatauni No. 19/19 situated in village Ramshehar, Pargana Rampur, Sub Tehsil Ramshehar, District, Solan, H.P. 3. Upon the afore instituted Civil Suit, the learned trial Court made a verdict, hence, decreeing the afore espoused decrees, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs. 4. The aggrieved defendant Jagdish Chand, through his LRs, and, also aggrieved defendant Paras Ram, also cast challenge(s) thereagainst, by theirs separately instituting, hence, before the learned Additional District Judge, Solan Camp at Nalagarh, Civil Appeals No. 69-NL/13 of 2002, and, Civil Appeal No. 68-NL/13 of 2002, and, thereon(s), the, first Appellate Court made a verdict hence dismissing, both, and obviously, it, affirmed, the verdict recorded, by, the learned trial Court. 5. The afore defendants'' becoming aggrieved therefrom, hence, each respectively institute, the, instant RSAs, before this Court, and therethrough they strived, to, beget reversal, vis-a-vis, the concurrent verdict(s), initially recorded, by, the learned trial Court, and, later by the learned first appellate Court. 6. This Court admitted RSA No. 490 of 2005, on, 23.9.2005, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. 6. This Court admitted RSA No. 490 of 2005, on, 23.9.2005, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether civil suit No. 39/1 of 1999 filed by respondents No.1 and 2 on 2.2.1999 is barred by limitations because the validity of judgment and decree in civil suit No. 4/1 of 1980 exhibit P-6 and P-7 dated 21.8.1980 has been challenged after a gap of more than 19 years? 2. Whether suit for declaration challenging judgment and decree exhibit P-6 and P-7 dated 21.8.1980 and subsequent mutation No. 164 attested on 28.4.1988 on the basis of exhibit P-6 and P-7 is barred by limitations? 3. Whether civil suit No. 39/1 of 1999, as filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 on 2.2.1999 is barred by principle of res judicata keeping in view the fact that in the earlier suit No. 4/1 of 1980, respondents/plaintiffs were impleaded as proformadefendants and in that suit respondent Paras Ram has specifically claimed that present respondents No.1 and 2 had been admitting his claim." 7. Furthermore, this Court also admitted RSA No. 502 of 2005, on, 28.9.2005, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether both the Courts below have wrongly held the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents to be within the jurisdiction of Civil Court by ignoring provisions of Section 57 of the H.P Consolidation (Prevention of Fragmentation Holdings) Act? 4. Whether both the Courts below have exceeded their jurisdiction in questioning the validity of the compromise and the decree based on it, especially when the plaintiffs-respondents failed to challenge the same by making requisite pleadings in their plaint? 6. Whether both the Courts below have acted in erroneous and perverse manner by ignoring the admissions made by the plaintiffs-respondent in various proceedings acknowledging the exclusive title of the defendant-appellant qua the suit land? Substantial questions of law in both the appeals:- 8. During the pendency, of, RSA No. 502 of 2005, before this Court, co-respondent No.3 Smt. Sushma Gupta, died, on 17.5.2019. However, it stands averred, in, the apposite application bearing number 10771 of 2019, contents whereof are duly supported, by, an affidavit, qua her LRs being already on record, hence, her name is ordered to be deleted from the array, of, litigants. Consequently, CMP No. 10771 of 2019 stands disposed of. However, it stands averred, in, the apposite application bearing number 10771 of 2019, contents whereof are duly supported, by, an affidavit, qua her LRs being already on record, hence, her name is ordered to be deleted from the array, of, litigants. Consequently, CMP No. 10771 of 2019 stands disposed of. As orally prayed for, by the learned counsel for the appellants, in, RSA No. 490 of 2005, the name of appellant No.1 Smt. Sushma Gupta, is ordered to be deleted from the array, of, litigants, given her LRs'' being already on record. 9. As afore-stated, the, dispute engaging the contesting litigants, is, confined only, to, the validity, of, attestation, of, mutation bearing No.164, and, also qua the validity, of, the consequent therewith entries, as, borne, in the apposite revenue records. The afore dispute would become rested, upon, the afore(s) being, within the domain or outside, the domain, of, a compromise decree pronounced, on, 21.8.1980. The apposite compromise decree is embodied, in, Ex. P-6. Ex. P-6 came to be pronounced, upon, a lis, becoming instituted, before the learned trial Court concerned, hence, by Paras Ram, and, therein he arrayed, in, the array of defendants one Jagdish Chand, hence, as a contesting defendant, and, also he arrayed therein, one Sukh Dai, and, Ram Kumari @ Raj Kumari, and, one Renku Devi, as, proforma defendants. 10. Apparently, the array, of, parties, in, the previous lis, as, embodied in Ex. P-1, does, bear absolute congruity, visa-vis, the array, of, parties, in, the extant lis hence, engaging the contesting litigants hereat. However, for, ensuring qua the afore apposite compromise decree, hence carrying, the, requisite binding, and, also conclusive effect, and, also, qua it operating, as, res judicata, (a) hence barring the co-plaintiffs, to, nowat rear any, challenge thereon, is, also enjoined, to, embody therein, khasra numbers bearing absolute analogity, vis-a-vis, the extant khasra numbers. The plaint in the previous suit, is, borne, in, Ex. The plaint in the previous suit, is, borne, in, Ex. P-1, and, therein the plaintiffs'' suit was, for, rendition, of, decree qua theirs becoming declared to be owner in possession, of, Agricultural qua land measuring 15 bighas and 5 biswas comprised in khewat No. 24/31 and 25/32 bearing khasra numbers 152(0-4), 153(0-2), 155(1-7), 225(3-14), 286 (1-17), 287 (1-5) 288(3-2), 303 (016), 304 (0-14), 306 (0-15), 307 (0-14) and (0-15) out of land measuring 3 bighas and 2 biswas in khasra No. 151 out of total land measuring 34 bighas and 5 biswas comprised, in, khewat/khatanuni Nos. 24/31 and 25/32 bearing khasra Nos. 139 (0-2), 140(0-2), 143 (0-5), 144 (1-6), 145 (2-1), 146 (1-7), 148 (0-4), 149 (0-13), 150 (0-2), 141 (2-16), 142 (1-6), 147 (6-9) and 151 (3-2), as, entered in the jamabandi, for, the year 1977-78, pertaining, to, and situated in village Rampur, Pargana Rampur, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., and, qua abadi land measuring 0-8 bigha bearing khasra Nos. 14(0-6) and 50(0-2) out of total Abadi land of 0-13 bigha in Abadi Deh comprised in khewat/khatauni Nos. 12/15, 13/16 and 17, pertaining, to, and situated in the area of village Ramshehar, pargana Rampur, Tehsil Nalagah, as, entered in the Jamabandi, for, the year 1975-76, and, qua houses Nos 1 and 4 situated at village Ramshahr, Pargana Rampur Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. However, except the, khasra numbers in the extant suit, and, bearing khasra numbers 20 and 81, all khasra numbers, as, embodied, in, the earlier lis, rather stand reflected in the challenged mutation. Visibly, the latter khasra numbers are not borne, in, plaint, embodied in Ex. P-1, (i) and, thereupon, the, afore lack, of, the requisite paramaterias'', inter-se, the suit khasra numbers in Ex. P-1, whereon a compromise decree Ex. P-6, stood rendered, and, vis-a-vis, the extant suit khasra numbers, (ii) obviously bears the imminent consequence, qua with the co-plaintiffs, in, the previous suit becoming validly proceeded against ex-parte, given, theirs'' despite valid personal service through ordinary mode, becoming caused upon them, theirs not recording either their respective personal appearances or through counsel, before the Court concerned, (iii) thereupon, the afore compromise decree hence becoming binding, upon, them (iv) besides hence only, vis-a-vis, the khasra numbers embodied, in, the earlier suit, rather the challenged mutation, becoming amenable, for, sustenance and validation (v) and it becoming invalidated, vis-a-vis, the extant suit khasra numbers. Fortified vigour, vis-a-vis, the afore inference, is, galvanized from Ex. D-9, wherein the plaintiffs, make a loud signatured proclamation, hence accepting the validity, of, the compromise decree, as, embodied in Ex. P-6, (vi) and, wherethrough they affirm the Taksim Khangi, as, entered inter-se the contesting litigants, proceedings drawn qua therewith, as, embodied in Ex. D-9 rather also stand signatured by them. In aftermath, though, thereupon no legal obstacle operates against coplaintiffs, to, rear a challenge against, the, challenged mutation, it obviously, becoming attested by the attesting officer, rather, beyond the mandate, of, the compromise decree embodied, in, Ex. P-6. Besides therealongwith, the, consequent therewith entries appertaining, to, the suit khasra numbers, and, as carried in the revenue records also become amenable, for, being quashed and set aside. 11. Succinctly, any estopping plea of abandonment or waiver becoming visited, vis-a-vis, the co-plaintiffs, in the extant suit, and, becoming sparked by Ex. D-6, wherethrough, the afore challenged mutation became attested, is, to also imperatively withstand, the mandate embodied in Ex. P-6. Since, the suit khasra numbers embodied therein, bear no analogity, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers herein, thereupon the afore lack of analogity inter-se the suit khasra numbers, in, the previous suit, and, whereon Ex. P-6, stood rendered, vis-a-vis, khasra numbers, in, the extant suit, hence cannot sustain, the, defendants'' espousal, qua, the challenged mutation becoming rendered, fully in consonance therewith, (a) rather besides also cannot sustain, their further contest qua the co-plaintiffs, in, the extant suit, rather thereupon, fully and willfully abandoning their rights, in, the suit khasra numbers, as, stood embodied, in, the extant suit. Even otherwise, the officer attesting the apposite mutation, bearing mutation No. 164, was enjoined to ensure, qua, the contesting litigants, present before him a valid registered deed, of, relinquishment, (b) wherethrough the co-plaintiffs, in the instant suit, validly exchanged/relinquished their suit share, vis-a-vis, the defendants. However no registered deed of relinquishment, and, wherethrough(s) co-plaintiffs, in the extant suit hence validly abandoned, their share, in, the extant suit, becomes adduced into evidence, and, (a) thereupon also no inference can become reared, vis-a-vis, the coplaintiffs, vis-a-vis, the extant suit, merely through, Ex. D-6 or through Ex. D-9, and, whereupon, they accepted, the, validity, of, the pronouncement, made, in Ex.P-6, also, hence willfully abandoning or waiving their share, in, the extant suit khasra numbers. Also, the apposite articulations, recorded in Ex. D-6 or through Ex. D-9, and, whereupon, they accepted, the, validity, of, the pronouncement, made, in Ex.P-6, also, hence willfully abandoning or waiving their share, in, the extant suit khasra numbers. Also, the apposite articulations, recorded in Ex. D-7, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, are also amenable, for, being quashed, and, set aside. 12. In addition, the erection of the afore inference would not erode the sanctity, of, the compromise decree pronounced in Ex. P-6, nor any untenable obstacle, of, statutory estoppal, can become erected against the coplaintiffs, as, the afore requisite parameter, for, erecting the afore estopping provisions, of, res judicata rather remains,for, the reasons aforestated, hence unmeted satiation. Reiteratedly, with, the challenged mutation, becoming rendered beyond the mandate, vis-a-vis, Ex. P-6 thereupon, it is nonest, and, also the consequent therewith entries, in, the revenue records are nonest. 13. Be that as it may, as, the challenged mutation stands made, only in part compliance, vis-a-vis, Exhibit P-6, and, is not made, vis-a-vis, the disputed hereat extant suit khasra numbers, (a) and, also when is not made, upon,the apt barring statutory provisions becoming recoursed, (b) whereas as aforestated, it, becoming pronounced, in, evident breach of Ex. P-1, hence only, the, Civil Court, upon, breach of the afore exhibit, becomes empowered to hold the apt jurisdiction, to, exercise jurisdiction, upon, the instant suit, (c) besides the apt statutory, bar, would become, operational only, upon, the challenged mutation becoming hence made, on, recoursings, and, thereafter on completion, of, the contemplated statutory mechanism(s), (d) whereas, the rendering, of, the afore challenged order, of, mutation, as made, in purported compliance, qua, Ex. P-6, exhibit whereof, is, a, verdict of the Civil Court concerned, hence, rendering the latter, to, judicially test vis-a-vis it becoming rendered within or outside, the, domain, of, Ex. P-6. 14. In view of the above, the present appeals are partly allowed, in as much, as, the apt extant suit khasra numbers qua wherewith, the challenged mutation, stood attested, being partly quashed, whereas, vis-a-vis, the khasra numbers embodied in Ex. P-1, hence, the challenged mutation, becomes valid. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Records be sent back.