JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal, stands, directed against the concurrently recorded verdicts, hence, by both the learned courts below, wherethrough, the plaintiff''s suit, seeking therethrough, rendition, of, a declaratory decree, for, pronouncing qua defendants No. 2 and 3, becoming legally separated, from, their respective father-in-law, and, father, of, the co-plaintiffs, rather become dismissed. The aggrieved plaintiffs strive, to, dislodge the concurrent verdicts, pronounced against them, through theirs'' instituting thereagainst, the, instant second appeal, before this Court. 2. The fulcrum of the entire lis, engaging, the contesting litigants, is, centralized, upon, the Panchayat Sahayak, who, in making the relevant entries, in, the Pariwar Register concerned, appertaining, to, the father- in-law, of co-plaintiff No.1, and, the father of co-plaintiff No.2, wherethrough, he, hence made inter-se separation, vis-a-vis, the family concerned, hence vitiating, the, afore act, on account of non adherence, by, him, vis-a-vis, the procedure embodied, in, Rule 21, of, the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, and, Rules 1997. 3. Even though, in consonance, with, the corrections, as, carried, in, the apposite Pariwar Register, and, borne in Ext. DW-2/A,rather entries also became carried, in, the Ration Card Register, as, embodied in Mark ''B''. However, no legal leverage, can be derived therefrom, rather, by the aggrieved plaintiffs, as, this Court, upon, being seized, with, the earlier lis, also, containing, a, subject matter, analogous vis-a-vis, the one encapsulated in the instant lis, and, appertaining to the act, of, the Panchayat Sahayak concerned, in, his making the afore apposite separation, dehors, his meteing compliance, vis-a-vis, the mandate embodied in Rule 21, of, the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, and, Rules, hence assuming any aura of validity, or, not (i) rather proceeding, to, make, a, verdict thereon, on 11.11.2011, hence with a candid pronouncement thereupon, vis-a-vis, the afore mandatory non- adherence, vis-a-vis, the afore apposite rules, hence, rendering the act, of, the Panchayat Sahayak concerned, rather in his, segregating, the, co-plaintiff(s), from, the family, of, their respective father-in-law, and, father, rather not assuming any aura of validity. Since the verdict pronounced by this Court, upon, CWP No. 8851 of 2011, upon, an earlier lis hence contains, an, absolute analogity, vis-a-vis, a subject matter, as also embodied, in, the instant lis, hence, makes the afore verdict, to, acquire conclusivity, (ii) thereupon the subsequent thereto, hence instituted suit, to, seek nullification, of, the afore earlier verdict, also attracts thereon, the, principle of res-judicata, (iii) wherethrough, the plaintiffs become absolutely, and, completely interdicted, from re-opening, the, conclusive, and, binding verdict, recorded earlier, upon, CWP No. 8851 of 2011, and, vis-a-vis, a similar hereat, hence raised controversy. 4. The above discussion, unfolds, qua the conclusion(s), as arrived by the learned first appellate Court, being based, upon a proper, and, mature appreciation, of, evidence on record. Accordingly, no question(s), of law, much less, any, substantial question of law, arises, for, determination, by this Court. 5. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal, is, dismissed, and, the judgment and decree impugned, before this Court, is, affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.